Domestic Violence | Domestic Battery| Order of Protection

Domestic Violence

CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, TELEPHONE HARASSMENT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NANCY JONES,
Defendant-Appellant No. 1-00-3941 APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST
DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION 2002 Ill. App. LEXIS 902
September 30, 2002, Filed

Defendant was convicted of telephone harassment. The
Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division (Illinois), sentenced
defendant to two years' conditional discharge with a mental health
examination, and defendant was ordered not have any unlawful contact
with her former attorney. Defendant appealed.
OVERVIEW: Defendant's conviction was based on telephone contact she had
with the attorney representing her in a civil action. On appeal,
defendant contended that she was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt because the State failed to prove that she made the telephone call
for the specific purpose of making a threat. The appellate court noted
first that defendant's intent should be measured at the time she placed
the call to the attorney. Thus, the appellate court concluded that,
based upon the totality of the surrounding circumstances, and the
reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom, the evidence
supported the finding that defendant intended to threaten the attorney
at the time the call was placed. Under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
135/1-1(2) (West 2000), the court was not required to consider whether
defendant's threat was reasonable, but, rather, whether her subsequent
conduct was evidence of her intent at the time she placed the phone
call.
OUTCOME: Defendant's conviction for telephone harassment was affirmed.

People v. Spencer 2nd Dist. Dupage County. No. 2-99-0379 (June 19,
2000) (BOWMAN) Reversed. Trial court erred when it convicted
defendant of telephone harassment and violation of an order of
protection after bench trial. Testimony of alleged victim that
defendant called her only once, and that she hung up immediately
upon identifying caller. is insufficient to prove either harassment
or violation of order of protection; since purpose of call was never
ascertained.

CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL: Does collateral
estoppel prevent the State from prosecuting a domestic battery
charge after a hearing judge dismisses an order of protection
petition brought and tried by the State? In People v. Wouk the court
answered no and affirmed the defendant's conviction.

1st Dist. People v. Wouk No. 1-99-2561 (October 25, 2000) 3rd div.
(WOLFSON) Affirmed. In this case, it is unclear whether unfairness
to the State would result from application of the collateral
estoppel doctrine. For that reason, the court declined to give
preclusive effect to the finding made during the prior order of
protection hearing. Because the order of protection proceeding is an
expedited proceeding with a different purpose than criminal domestic
violence statute, conviction for domestic violence based on
complaint brought by State after denial of petition for order of
protection alleging same facts and brought by State against same
defendant was not barred by collateral estoppel.