People v. Westfall
| Decision Date | 08 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-15-0997,4-15-0997 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher T. WESTFALL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Salome Kiwara-Wilson, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
John C. Milhiser, State’s Attorney, of Springfield (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Linda Susan McClain, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 In March 2013, the State charged defendant, Christopher T. Westfall, with two counts of criminal sexual assault. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(1) (West 2012). The conduct alleged was the following: mouth to vagina (count I) and penis to vagina (count II). The alleged victim was K.W., defendant's estranged wife.
¶ 2 In October 2014, defense counsel filed a motion for mental examination to determine defendant's fitness to stand trial. The trial court granted defense counsel's motion. The court did not conduct a fitness hearing once the results of the mental examination were communicated to the court.
¶ 3 In June 2015, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to K.W.'s mental health at trial. In July 2015, the trial court granted the State's motion. In August 2015, the court modified its ruling so that defendant could cross-examine K.W. on her use of the medication Abilify.
¶ 4 In August 2015, the trial court began defendant's jury trial by conducting voir dire , during which the court discussed the Zehr principles. See People v. Zehr , 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477, 83 Ill.Dec. 128, 469 N.E.2d 1062, 1064 (1984). The jury found defendant guilty of both counts of criminal sexual assault. In November 2015, the court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison on each count and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. The court also ordered the circuit clerk to impose "all mandatory fines and fees that must be imposed" and granted the State's request for restitution to be paid to Prairie Center Against Sexual Assault for counseling K.W. had received.
¶ 5 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred because it failed to conduct a fitness hearing after finding that there was a bona fide doubt as to defendant's fitness to stand trial, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) the trial court failed to properly question two jurors on the relevant Zehr principles, and (4) the trial court improperly entered a civil judgment. We affirm.
¶ 8 In October 2014, defense counsel filed a motion for a mental examination of defendant to determine his fitness to stand trial. In that motion, counsel requested that the trial court appoint a psychiatrist to examine defendant and to render an opinion as to whether defendant was fit to stand trial. See 725 ILCS 5/104-11(b) (West 2014).
¶ 9 In November 2014, when the trial court conducted a hearing on this motion, defense counsel informed the court that he had "bona fide doubts" about defendant's ability to assist in his own defense. Counsel stated that, in preparing for trial, he "learned that [defendant] had prior mental health treatment." At that hearing, defendant acknowledged that he had received treatment from mental health professionals 10 years earlier but argued he was fit to stand trial because he was discharged from treatment. The court granted defense counsel's motion and ordered that defendant "be evaluated by Terry M. Killian, M.D. for a mental examination to determine his fitness to stand trial."
¶ 10 In February 2015, the trial court conducted a status hearing at which the following exchange took place:
¶ 11 In his report, Killian concluded defendant was fit to stand trial within a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty. Killian noted that defendant demonstrated an adequate understanding of the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him and that he appeared to be able to assist in his defense.
¶ 12 B. The Mental Health of K.W.
¶ 13 In June 2015, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to K.W.'s mental health, which stated the following:
¶ 14 In August 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State's motion in limine , at which the State argued that it was up to defendant to show the relevance in 2012 (when the alleged sexual assault occurred) of concerns about K.W.'s mental health in 2006. Defendant suggested that K.W.'s mental health and the medications she was taking were relevant to her ability to perceive the alleged sexual assault. Defense counsel also informed the court that defendant told him that defendant had taken K.W. to mental health centers on multiple occasions because she had been having significant mental health problems. The State argued that defendant failed to demonstrate that K.W.'s mental health had any effect on her ability to perceive the alleged attack.
¶ 15 The trial court granted the State's motion but stated that it would allow defendant an opportunity to examine K.W. about her mental health outside the presence of the jury to establish relevance. If defendant could establish relevance, the court would reconsider its ruling.
¶ 16 In August 2015, immediately prior to trial, the trial court gave defendant an opportunity to examine K.W. outside the presence of the jury about her mental health. Defendant offered to stipulate that K.W. was taking Depakote, Compazine, Lexapro, and Abilify to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety. After the State refused this stipulation, the court ruled that defendant would have to prove relevance through K.W.'s testimony out of the jury's presence.
¶ 17 K.W., who was 42 years old at the time of trial, then testified that she was diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety when she was 17 years old. K.W. stated that she was prescribed Depakote, Abilify, and Lexapro. She noted that the Abilify was to help her sleep at night and that it may have affected her ability to stay awake. K.W. denied that the Depakote and Lexapro affected her ability to perceive events. K.W. stated that she has no memory or perception problems.
¶ 18 Based upon this testimony, the trial court ruled that defendant could cross-examine K.W. on her use of Abilify and how it may have affected her ability to perceive events. However, the court excluded cross-examination regarding her mental health and her use of other prescription drugs.
¶ 20 Jury selection for defendant's trial began in August 2015. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b), which codified the principles established in Zehr , 103 Ill. 2d at 477, 83 Ill.Dec. 128, 469 N.E.2d 1062, requires a trial court to ask all potential jurors whether they understand and accept that (1) the defendant is presumed innocent, (2) the State bears the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (3) the defendant has no obligation to present evidence, and (4) the defendant's choice to not testify cannot be held against him. Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). During jury selection, the court did not ask one of the jurors about the Zehr principles and did not ask another juror whether he accepted that the State has the burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 23 K.W. testified that on July 26, 2012, at approximately 1 a.m., she was arguing with defendant over the phone. K.W. noted that she was married to defendant but they had been living separately since 2011. K.W. stated that defendant asked to come over to her house, and she agreed so that they could talk in person. Defendant arrived at her home at approximately 1:45 a.m.
¶ 24 Upon arriving at her home, defendant continued to argue with K.W. After a while, they stopped arguing and simply watched television together on the sofa. Defendant was drinking alcohol and eventually fell asleep. K.W. later fell asleep as well.
¶ 25 K.W. awoke when defendant grabbed her pants and began wrestling with her. K.W. ultimately ended up on the floor. As they struggled, she told defendant to stop and that she was on her period. She testified that defendant responded by telling her to shut up and then bit her on her left hip and bit her vagina. K.W. started screaming and continued to struggle, and defendant later put his penis inside her vagina and had sex with her. K.W. passed out during this encounter. K.W. also testified that defendant "shoved [his hand] inside her," cutting her vagina. As a result of that and his biting her, she had two different cuts in her vagina.
¶ 26 K.W. woke up the next morning to find defendant asleep on the couch. She found a hammer and chased him out of her house. K.W. eventually called defendant's mother to discuss what happened. Around 2 p.m., she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Eyler
...but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. People v. Westfall , 2018 IL App (4th) 150997, ¶ 63, 426 Ill.Dec. 226, 115 N.E.3d 1148. "In the context of failure to file a motion to suppress, prejudice arises when a d......
-
People v. Logan
...718, 89 N.E.3d 366. To prevail, "a defendant must show that counsel's performance was (1) deficient and (2) prejudicial." People v. Westfall , 2018 IL App (4th) 150997, ¶ 61, 426 Ill.Dec. 226, 115 N.E.3d 1148. "Failure to satisfy either prong negates a claim of ineffective assistance of cou......
-
People v. Sturgeon
...assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was (1) deficient and (2) prejudicial. People v. Westfall , 2018 IL App (4th) 150997, ¶ 61, 426 Ill.Dec. 226, 115 N.E.3d 1148. ¶ 82 To establish deficient performance, a defendant must demonstrate that his attorney's ......
-
People v. Schnoor
...1. The Applicable Law ¶ 42 "The due process clause prohibits the prosecution of a defendant who is unfit to stand trial." People v. Westfall , 2018 IL App (4th) 150997, ¶ 52, 426 Ill.Dec. 226, 115 N.E.3d 1148 (citing People v. Gillon , 2016 IL App (4th) 140801, ¶ 20, 409 Ill.Dec. 834, 68 N.......