People v. Soto
| Decision Date | 04 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1-20-1208 |
| Citation | 2022 IL App (1st) 201208,201 N.E.3d 91,460 Ill.Dec. 433 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles SOTO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Saul M. Ferris, of Ferris, Thompson & Zweig, Ltd., of Gurnee, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (John E. Nowak, Enrique Abraham, Matthew Connors, and Noah Montague, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Charles Soto was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse and sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 10 and 4 years. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in not dismissing his case for a prejudicial six-year preindictment delay. He contends that the State failed to disclose the complainant's felony conviction and the alleged victim's failure to identify defendant. He contends that the court erred in admitting the prior statement of the alleged victim. He also contends that the court erred in denying his motion for an evidentiary deposition of a physician to whom the alleged victim denied being abused and his motion to bar the alleged victim from identifying defendant at trial. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial for the alleged victim testifying in violation of an order in limine. Lastly, he contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the State did not prove at trial that the offense occurred in Illinois. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
¶ 3 On March 12, 2020, a jury found defendant guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The court sentenced him to a total of 14 years’ imprisonment on October 22, 2020, and he filed his notice of appeal that day. Thus, this court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) and Rule 606 (eff. July 1, 2017) governing appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case.
¶ 5 Defendant was charged in a November 2018 indictment with predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse, both allegedly committed in Cook County, Illinois, against T.L. on or about August 15, 2012, when she was under 13 years old and he was at least 17 years old. Allegedly, the former consisted of defendant inserting his finger in T.L.’s anus, and the latter consisted of defendant touching his penis to her hand for purposes of his or her sexual arousal or gratification. Both counts recited that the limitation period was extended pursuant to section 3-6(j) of the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/3-6(j) (West 2012)) because T.L. was under 18 years old at the time of the offenses and the prosecution was commenced within 20 years of her 18th birthday.
¶ 7 The State filed a motion to introduce other-crimes evidence or to join this case with another pending case against defendant, No. 18-CR-16489. In that case, defendant was charged with aggravated criminal sexual abuse of J.S. between September 2009 and October 2011, when J.S. was about 12 years old and defendant was about 32 years old. The State alleged that, on five occasions, defendant sat with J.S. as she watched television on the couch in defendant's home and felt her breasts and vaginal area. The State alleged regarding T.L. that defendant was an acquaintance of her mother through a substance abuse clinic where she was treated and he worked. When T.L. was six years old, he brought her to his home to play with his daughters but while there placed his penis in her hand on the pretense that they were playing a game and then took her to the bathroom where he penetrated her anus. The State alleged that T.L. reported the incident to her mother upon returning home and her mother in turn reported the incident.
¶ 8 The State argued that the other crimes were admissible to show defendant's propensity to commit sexual assault. See 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3 (West 2012). The earlier offenses occurred within two years of the instant offenses, defendant victimized children in his home in both cases, and the State argued that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The State also argued that the other crimes were admissible to show defendant's intent and motive.
¶ 9 Defendant responded to the motion, arguing that the alleged offenses were not similar, including that the alleged victims were significantly different in age, nor proximate in time. "The State is attempting to take one unreliable, uncorroborated allegation and bolster it with another unreliable, uncorroborated allegation to create a false illusion of credibility." He also argued that State had not disclosed the nature of the evidence it would use to show the other crimes so that the defense could not evaluate or properly rebut that the evidence was otherwise admissible.
¶ 10 Following arguments, the court found that both offenses occurred in defendant's home less than a year apart, when other children were present in the home but no other adults were, and both victims were girls under age 13 for whom defendant was in a position of trust, but there was no continuing narrative or common method between the offenses. The court denied joinder and use of the other-crimes evidence for modus operandi , motive, or lack of consent, the latter because children are unable to consent. It admitted the other-crimes evidence to show intent, identity, absence of mistake, and propensity. The court stated that it would give a limiting instruction before and/or after introduction of the evidence at defendant's request.
¶ 12 The State filed a motion for a hearing on the admissibility of statements by T.L. See id. § 115-10. T.L. gave a statement on August 24, 2012, to Lauren Glazer during a victim-sensitive interview at the Chicago Children's Advocacy Center (Center). Attached to the motion was a video and transcript of the interview.
¶ 13 In the interview, Glazer introduced herself and told T.L. that "you're not in any kind of trouble" and "you can tell me anything that you want." T.L. then said she went to the hospital " ‘Cause the man touch me" and "was making me touch his goobey gun and he was touching my butthole." The man was Charlie, a bodyguard, and it was a Wednesday. She was at his home because "my momma let me go" "on a play date but it didn't—everything got bad." He drove her there in his car. He took his dog for a walk, then they watched a movie and she asked to play with his daughter's dolls. His daughters were not there; they visited him overnight but did not live there.
¶ 14 T.L. was having fun, wearing his daughter's clothes. He "was playing a game with the goobey gun he think it was funny I say eww and he said what and I said I don't wanna play this game anymore." She indicated that a "goobey gun" is on the front of a boy and used for "going pee-pee." She called it a goobey gun, not Charlie. She did not see Charlie's goobey gun because "he covered my eyes *** and he made me touch his goobey gun." Her eyes were covered by a black sleeping mask of his daughters, and he told her to guess and "put his hand on me *** and made me touch his goobey gun." She guessed it was a brush and then "said goobey gun and I said eww what's that." He said nothing to her guess. She knew it was a goobey gun because "I heard to zipper a little bit." She did not feel anything come out of his goobey gun and he did not make any noises or sounds when she touched it. When she said she did not want to play the guessing game, she "got off the bed."
¶ 15 When asked what happened with her butthole, T.L. replied that "[h]e put his finger" in "deep—deep—deep" and it hurt. He did it while she was sitting on the bed, and he said nothing while he did it for "like eight minutes." He made her take her clothes off and then put them on again, and she changed clothes in the bathroom from her own clothes to his daughter's shirt and pants he provided. When asked "I thought you told me you were in the bathroom when he put his finger in your butthole, where were you?" T.L. answered "In the room—it's his daughter's room." When asked what made him stop, T.L. replied "Like he do that to his daughters like I don't know I never seen his daughters before." He did not tell her that he "does that" to his daughters, and "I don't know what he do to his daughters—I don't know what he do." Later, he told her it was time to go home. Before Charlie took her home, he told her not to tell anyone. She agreed "but I tricked him." Her parents were not home when she arrived home, but she told her "whole family" including her sister Sarah and brother Marcus, and then her mother when she came home. Sarah, about 15 years old, was "really angry about my momma" because "they just let me go with that man." When asked how she knew the man, T.L. replied "I know him about 15 days."
¶ 16 Glazer asked T.L. if she understood what truth and lies are. She said "You're supposed to tell the truth so they can arrest the man." When asked if it would be a lie if someone said a dog was sitting in a nearby chair, she first said it would be the truth and then admitted it would not be true. When asked if it would be true for someone to say she was 2, or 12, years old, she said that would be true or real. T.L. said she would "make paper about" what a goobey gun is, and Glazer replied "[a] picture well that's a good idea" but then ended the interview. At two points during the interview, T.L. said she had a headache and asked to take a break, and at another point ...
To continue reading
Request your trial