People v. Skaggs

Decision Date17 May 2019
Docket NumberNO. 4-16-0335,4-16-0335
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack SKAGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In November 2012, the State charged defendant, Jack Skaggs, with three counts of criminal sexual assault, three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, and three counts of home invasion. After a September 2015 trial, a jury found defendant guilty of only two counts of criminal sexual assault and one count of home invasion. In April 2016, the Sangamon County circuit court sentenced defendant to consecutive prison terms of 10 years for home invasion and 40 years on each count of criminal sexual assault.

¶ 2 On appeal, defendant only argues one of his convictions for criminal sexual assault should be vacated as it is a lesser-included offense of home invasion. We agree and vacate in part, affirm in part, and remand with directions.


¶ 4 The charges at issue in this case stem from an incident occurring in the early morning hours of November 11, 2012, at the home of defendant's former girlfriend, T.P. The three counts of criminal sexual assault alleged defendant committed an act of sexual penetration by placing his penis in contact with the sex organ (count I), anus (count II), and mouth (count III) of T.P. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(1) (West 2012). The aggravated criminal sexual assault charges asserted defendant committed an act of sexual penetration by placing his penis in contact with the sex organ (count IV), anus (count V), and mouth (count VI) of T.P while displaying a dangerous weapon, a knife. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(a)(1) (West Supp. 2011). In the home invasion counts, the State alleged defendant entered the dwelling of T.P. without authority and committed a criminal sexual assault (count VII), committed an aggravated criminal sexual assault (count VIII), and threatened the imminent use of force while armed with a knife (count IX). 720 ILCS 5/12-11(a)(1), (a)(6) (West 2010) (text of section effective July 1, 2011).

¶ 5 Before trial, defendant complained about his public defender and indicated his desire to represent himself. After admonishing defendant pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401 (eff. July 1, 1984), the circuit court granted defendant's request to proceed pro se and allowed the public defender to withdraw. At trial, the State presented the testimony evidence of (1) T.P., the victim; (2) Springfield police officer Ronald Roy; (3) Springfield police detective Michael Flynn; (4) Heather Saunders, an emergency room nurse; (5) Springfield police detective Kim Overby; (6) Amanda Humke, a forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police; and (7) Kelly Biggs, a forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police. Defendant recalled Detective Flynn, Officer Roy, and T.P. Defendant also testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Russell Blevins, defendant's employee. Both the State and defendant presented numerous exhibits consisting of, inter alia , photographs of the crime scene and T.P. The parties also stipulated defendant had been charged with three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and two counts of criminal sexual assault in Sangamon County case No. 99-CF-98. Defendant was found guilty of only one count of criminal sexual assault. The evidence relevant to the issue on appeal is set forth below.

¶ 6 T.P testified she had the job of managing dart tournaments at various establishments. On the night of November 11, 2012, T.P was running a dart tournament at The Cove, and defendant was playing in the tournament. T.P had dated defendant for five years, and they broke up a month before that night. T.P. testified defendant appeared to be intoxicated and they spoke very little to each other during the tournament. T.P did not make any plans with defendant that night.

¶ 7 After the tournament ended, T.P. gave two people a ride home and purchased some food from McDonald's for herself to eat at home. When T.P. arrived at her home, she noticed the basement light was on and thought her daughter was there. After looking in the bedroom for her daughter, she turned off the basement light and went to the refrigerator to get a drink. While she was at the refrigerator, the basement door swung open, and defendant appeared. Defendant came at T.P., demanding she masturbate him or he would "beat [her] within an inch of [her] life." T.P. asked defendant what he was doing there and told him to get out. Defendant grabbed her by the throat and pushed her, causing T.P. to fall into her open dishwasher. When T.P. stood up, defendant ordered her to remove her clothes. T.P. refused, and defendant hit her in the head. Defendant started taking off T.P.'s clothes, and T.P. tried to stop him. At some point, defendant dragged T.P. by her shirt collar to the bedroom and threw her on the bed. T.P. eventually removed her shirt as ordered but refused to remove her bra. Defendant obtained a steak knife from the kitchen, held it to her throat, and demanded she take off her bra. When defendant pushed the knife harder into her throat, she complied and took off her bra.

¶ 8 Defendant penetrated T.P.'s anus and then attempted to penetrate her vagina. T.P. moved around trying to avoid defendant. In the struggle, defendant's penis made contact with T.P.'s vagina. Defendant then left the room and got extension cords. When he returned, he tied T.P.'s hands above her head. Defendant then put his penis in T.P.'s mouth. The knife was above her head during the encounter. When defendant was finished, he threw T.P.'s clothes at her. They both got dressed and returned to the kitchen.

¶ 9 While in the kitchen, defendant kept "chastising" T.P. because she would not let defendant see her grandson. At some point, defendant approached T.P. and demanded she put her hand on his penis. T.P. protested, and eventually defendant threw her in the bedroom a second time. Defendant attempted to penetrate T.P.'s anus with his penis and eventually penetrated her vagina. After defendant was done, they again dressed and returned to the kitchen. Defendant was still upset with T.P. for not allowing him to see her grandson and threatened to kill her. He also kept asking her to take a shower. T.P. was eventually able to calm defendant down, and defendant called a cab. As he was leaving, defendant asked T.P. if he should stop by the police department on his way home.

¶ 10 When defendant was gone, T.P. contacted the police. A police officer arrived shortly after she called. While T.P. was talking to the police officer, she noticed something was not right with the window above her kitchen sink. When she examined the window, T.P. noticed the corner of the screen was cut and a ladder was standing next to the window. She stored the ladder in a shed in her backyard, and defendant had previously used her ladders while they were dating. After talking with T.P, the police officer sent T.P. to the hospital. At the hospital, someone took pictures of T.P.'s wrists, neck, and face. T.P. also had her daughter take a photograph of bruising beginning to show on her left eye on the evening of November 12, 2012.

¶ 11 Saunders testified she was the emergency room nurse who completed the sexual assault kit on T.P. After completing the 15 steps for collecting evidence, Saunders sealed the box and gave it to a police officer. Saunders also testified it was normal for bruising to form over time, which may take hours or days.

¶ 12 Detective Overby testified she was the one who took pictures at the scene and at the hospital. She also collected the evidence at T.P's home. Moreover, Detective Overby testified she was told by either Officer Roy or Detective Flynn the knife defendant used was put back into the knife block in the kitchen. The person explained it was the knife on the lower left side. Detective Overby collected that knife.

¶ 13 Humke testified she examined the vaginal, oral, and anal swabs from T.P.'s sexual assault kit. Humke identified semen on the vaginal and anal swabs but did not find any on the oral swab. Humke forwarded the vaginal swabs to another forensic scientist for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. Biggs testified she was the one who conducted the DNA analysis on the vaginal swabs. Biggs was able to generate DNA profiles from the vaginal swabs. The female DNA profile matched T.P.'s DNA, and the male DNA profile matched defendant's DNA.

¶ 14 Defendant testified he won money at the dart tournament and went up to T.P. to collect it. Defendant told T.P. to keep his winnings and asked if they could get together sometime. T.P. told him he could meet her at the house or stay at the bar until she was done with the tournament. Defendant left the bar and eventually went to T.P.'s house. He sat on T.P.'s front porch until she arrived home. T.P. opened the front door, and he followed her into the home. They started talking and eventually kissed. They then had consensual sex. Afterwards, they talked in the kitchen for about 45 minutes and then he took a cab home. Defendant further testified he cooperated with the police and gave them a buccal swab.

¶ 15 Defendant recalled T.P. to have her acknowledge their prior relationship and the fact she knew he was a registered sex offender. He also had her acknowledge she made an allegation of sexual assault on the night of October 11, 2012, and did not report it to the police.

¶ 16 At the close of all the evidence, the State dismissed count III of the information, which charged defendant with criminal sexual assault based on oral contact. The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of criminal sexual assault, count I (vaginal) and count II (anal), and one count of home invasion, count VII (criminal sexual assault). The jury found defendant not guilty of the three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, counts IV...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • People v. Reveles-Cordova
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 19, 2020
    ...commit other forms of home invasion without committing criminal sexual assault.¶ 16 The other line of cases, identified by defendant as the Skaggs line, interprets Miller to require courts to consider only the statutory subsection under which the defendant was actually charged and convicted......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT