People v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 25 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-13-0804,4-13-0804 |
| Citation | 2016 IL App (4th) 130804 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAHINTE T. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County
Honorable Thomas J. Difanis, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) the evidence was sufficient; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence pursuant to sections 115-10 and 115-7.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 or in limiting impeachment testimony; (3) the court properly instructed the jury; and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 75 years' imprisonment.
¶ 2 In June 2013, a jury convicted defendant, Dahinte T. Thompson, of one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2010)), and one count of criminal sexual assault, a Class 1 felony (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(3) (West 2010)), based on incidents of sexual abuse involving defendant and his minor daughter, D.T. (born November 4, 1999). The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 60 years' imprisonment for his predatory-criminal-sexual-assault conviction and 15 years' imprisonment for his criminal-sexual-assault conviction.
¶ 3 Defendant appeals, arguing this court should (1) reduce his convictions to two convictions for aggravated criminal sexual abuse because the State failed to prove penetration beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court erred in admitting D.T.'s out-of-court statement pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2012)). Defendant further argues this court should reverse and remand for a new trial because the court erred by (1) limiting witness testimony that impeached D.T.'s testimony; (2) improperly instructing the jury on the intrusion clause of the definition of sexual penetration; and (3) admitting evidence of defendant's alleged sexual abuse of his sister pursuant to section 115-7.3 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/115-7.3 (West 2012)). Finally, defendant argues his 75-year aggregate sentence (1) is excessive and should be reduced; or (2) was based on an improper factor and this court should remand for resentencing. We affirm.
¶ 5 In November 2012, the State charged defendant by information with one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of criminal sexual assault. We summarize only the facts and testimony necessary for the purposes of this appeal.
¶ 7 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to admit evidence of D.T.'s out-of-court statements made to Linda Wild, an investigator with the Department of Children and Family Services, pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2012). The State sought to introduce D.T.'s statements to Wild through a video recording of the interview. In April 2013, the trial court held a hearing on this motion and found "the time[,] content[,] and circumstances of the statement provide[d] sufficient safeguards of reliability assuming the child testifies at trial." Accordingly, the court admitted the video-recorded out-of-court statements for presentation to the jury.
¶ 8 The State also filed a motion to admit evidence of defendant's alleged sexual abuse of his younger sister, which occurred from 1985 through 1991, and his alleged sexual abuse of D.T., which occurred from 2007 through 2012, pursuant to section 115-7.3 of the Code. (725 ILCS 5/115-7.3 (West 2012). The State sought to introduce this other-crimes evidence through the testimony of defendant's sister, Latera Thompson, and through D.T.'s testimony for the purpose of showing propensity. The trial court admitted this evidence after weighing the factors set forth in section 115-7.3(c) of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3(c) (West 2012). The court found the proximity in time problematic but ultimately ruled the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.
¶ 10 In June 2013, the matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jurors heard the following evidence.
¶ 11 1. D.T.
¶ 12 D.T. testified she was 13 years old and was born on November 4, 1999. D.T. stated she spoke to Marcy Nickerson, the school counselor, on November 13, 2012, "[b]ecause there was something bad going on at home." According to D.T., her father, defendant, touched her in inappropriate places, including her breasts, vagina, and buttocks. D.T. stated she told her friends about this conduct prior to speaking with Nickerson. D.T. testified defendant picked her up from school on November 12, 2012. D.T.'s older sister had a basketball game, so defendant did not pick her up from school. D.T.'s younger siblings were still at school when she and defendant got home. She further indicated her mother, Angela Thompson, came straight home from work and also did not attend her sister's basketball game. D.T. testified as follows about the incidents that occurred that day.
This incident occurred on November 12, 2012, shortly after D.T.'s thirteenth birthday.
¶ 13 D.T. testified defendant was "doing the same stuff" a "couple of weeks" before her thirteenth birthday. She also stated the first time defendant touched her inappropriately was when she was in third grade. According to D.T., defendant was sitting on the toilet in the upstairs bathroom at their house. D.T. entered the bathroom to throw something away and defendant pulled her onto his lap, saying, "this is going to be going on for a long time." D.T. further testified defendant touched her inappropriately on a daily basis between the first incident in third grade and the day she told her friends and Nickerson in seventh grade. D.T. stated defendant would most often touch her "[w]ith [his] hands, and his penis in [her] butt." D.T. said she did not tell anyone because she feared defendant would hurt her. She decided to tell her friends because she was "tired of him doing it to me."
¶ 14 On cross-examination, D.T. agreed, on November 13, 2012, she had a conversation with Linda Wild while at the Children's Advocacy Center. She told Wild what happened on November 12, 2012, and incidents on previous dates. D.T. agreed she told Wild her father placed his penis in her vagina one prior time in the basement of the house and he placed his penis in her anus once.
¶ 15 Defense counsel then asked D.T. about her physical exam with Dr. Kathleen Buetow. D.T. agreed she told Dr. Buetow defendant touched her inappropriately, including touching the "outside of [her] butt." D.T. could not recall telling Dr. Buetow (1) defendant touched the "inside of [her] butt," (2) the inappropriate touching happened every day since she was in sixth grade, (3) the worst thing that happened was defendant tried to place his penis inside her anus, or (4) defendant placed his penis inside her "private part" six to nine times. D.T. told Dr. Buetow sometimes defendant would ejaculate on the floor or bed, he tried to make D.T. touch his penis, and he tried to put his penis in D.T.'s mouth. D.T. denied telling Dr. Buetow defendant tried to make D.T. touch his penis every day, put his penis in D.T.'s "private" once a week, or put his penis in her anus once a week. D.T. described defendant's penis as soft during these incidents.
¶ 17 Rantoul police officer Marcus Beach testified he received a call from D.T.'s school disclosing the allegations of sexual abuse. Beach spoke with Wild and then called D.T.'s mother. When Angela and defendant arrived at the Rantoul police department, Beach asked defendant to wait in the lobby and asked to speak with Angela privately. Beach spoke with Angela for about 10 minutes and informed her of the sexual abuse allegations. When they finished, the lobby of the police station was empty and the vehicle Angela and defendant arrived in was gone.
¶ 18 Angela called defendant and he returned to the police station 10 to 15 minutes later. According to Beach, defendant left the police station because The State introduced into evidence photos of the police station lobby, which had a public restroom just inside the front door. Defendant returned to the police station and Beach informed him of the sexual abuse allegations.
¶ 20 A video of Wild's November 13, 2012, interview with D.T. was admitted into evidence. D.T. told Wild she was 13 years old and her best friends were R.T. and M.M. Wild asked why D.T. was there, and D.T. responded her father had done some bad things to her, most recently the day before. D.T. stated she and defendant arrived home around 3 p.m. and no one else was home. According to D.T., defendant called her upstairs to the bedroom he shared with her mother. D.T. told Wild she went upstairs and defendant pulled down her pants and started...
To continue reading
Request your trial