Self-Defense Claim Rejected in Criminal Damage to Property Case, Study notes of Criminal Law

Download Self-Defense Claim Rejected in Criminal Damage to Property Case and more Study notes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity! NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2022 IL App (3d) 190652-U Order filed February 16, 2022 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2022 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) ILLINOIS, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) MATTHEW H. RICE, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois. Appeal No. 3-19-0652 Circuit No. 19-CM-1442 Honorable Cory D. Lund, Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Daugherity and McDade concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶ 1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense when he committed the offense of criminal damage to property. ¶ 2 Defendant, Matthew H. Rice, appeals his conviction of criminal damage to property. He argues that the Will County circuit court failed to consider his self-defense claim for the criminal damage to property charge, and the evidence was insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt he did not act in self-defense. We affirm. 2 ¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND ¶ 4 The State charged defendant with battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(1) (West 2018)) and criminal damage to property (id. § 21-1(a)(1)). The complaint alleged that defendant, without legal justification, knowingly caused bodily harm to Geneva McKinley by striking her in the face with a socket wrench. The charging instrument also alleged that defendant damaged McKinley’s windshield by striking it with a Starbucks drink can, with the damage not exceeding $500. ¶ 5 The evidence presented at trial established that an altercation between defendant and McKinley occurred on July 4, 2019. Defendant and McKinley had been in a relationship that had begun to deteriorate. On the date of the incident, defendant and McKinley engaged in an argument while defendant performed maintenance on his truck, which was parked outside McKinley’s apartment. ¶ 6 McKinley testified that she had been in a relationship with defendant for approximately nine months. She told defendant on the day of the incident that he had to get a job, go to school, or “he was going to get gone out of [her] life,” which caused the argument. Defendant told McKinley to gather his belongings from her apartment. When she brought his belongings outside, one bag containing unopened Starbucks cans ripped, and the cans fell out. Defendant picked up one can and threw it at her, but she ducked. The can hit and damaged the windshield of her vehicle, which was parked next to defendant’s truck. McKinley testified defendant then hit her with a socket wrench on both temples and strangled her, dragging her to the back of defendant’s truck. When he released her, McKinley entered her apartment and called the police. ¶ 7 Defendant testified that he had asked McKinley to bring him his belongings from her apartment. McKinley collected his belongings and threw them in the back of defendant’s truck. McKinley then asked defendant for money, and defendant refused. Defendant and McKinley 5 State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Id. ¶ 15 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, defendant’s claim is without merit. If we accept defendant’s contention that McKinley was the initial aggressor as true, a rational trier of fact could still find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self- defense. Defendant was not objectively in imminent danger, and the use of force was not necessary or justified. Defendant admitted that he threw the can and that it struck the windshield of McKinley’s vehicle. While defendant points out a nonaggressor is under no duty to retreat before using justifiable force to protect himself, he was not in danger when he threw the can. See People v. Estes, 127 Ill. App. 3d 642, 649 (1984). Defendant was not in close enough proximity to McKinley to be in imminent danger, and he acknowledged that he could have removed himself from the situation by running down the alleyway. Nevertheless, he remained at the scene and threw a can at McKinley, missing her but hitting and damaging the windshield of McKinley’s vehicle. Defendant also remained at the scene after disarming McKinley so he could finish loading his truck before he left the parking lot, further demonstrating defendant was not in danger at the time of the incident. Therefore, the force employed was not justified under the circumstances. We find the State reasonably disproved defendant’s self-defense claim. ¶ 16 In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that both defendant’s and McKinley’s credibility were imperfect. However, defendant’s own testimony defeats his claim of self-defense. As discussed above, defendant admitted that he had a means to escape the situation by running down the alley. Indeed, defendant initially ran away from McKinley after she stabbed him, but instead of continuing down the alley, he turned and threw a can at McKinley. We conclude the State 6 presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self- defense. ¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION ¶ 18 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Will County. ¶ 19 Affirmed.