Opinion
No. 2-17-0339
04-05-2019
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARNELL WYNN, Defendant-Appellant.
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 the Circuit Court of Kane County.
No. 15-CF-1497
Honorable Donald J. Tegeler, Jr. Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Hutchinson and Spence concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The State proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted first-degree murder, specifically his intent to kill, as defendant subjected the defenseless victim to an extreme beating, inflicting injuries that were obviously life-threatening.
¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant, Darnell Wynn, was convicted of attempted first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1(a)(1) (West 2016)) and aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05). After the court merged the two convictions for sentencing purposes, it sentenced defendant to 12 years' imprisonment. Defendant timely appeals, claiming that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intent to kill the victim. We affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On the afternoon of September 22, 2015, defendant and his girlfriend, Betty Money, were drinking beer in a park in Aurora. As night approached, the couple decided to end their evening together, and they began walking to Money's home. Money, who was in a cast and walked with a cane, decided to stop and rest on a curb during that walk home. Defendant stopped with her, and the couple decided to split the last of the four or five beers that defendant had purchased. Soon thereafter, Lawrence Busch approached the couple on his bicycle.
¶ 5 According to Money, Busch, who lived in the same homeless shelter as Money, began talking to her. Defendant, who had no prior contact with Busch, asked Busch to "move on." Busch refused, and defendant and Busch began "squaring up" to fight.
¶ 6 Defendant testified that the fight began after Busch, who defendant claimed was bigger than him, asked him for money to buy cocaine. Defendant believed that, once Busch engaged him in a fight, associates of Busch would attack and rob defendant. This belief was based on past robberies of which defendant was the victim. One of these incidents happened on September 20, 2015, and defendant stated that the police did show up at the scene of that robbery.
¶ 7 Patrick Smith, who was driving home from the train station, confirmed that he saw defendant and Busch "squaring up" to fight. The men, who stood under a street lamp, were pushing each other and assuming self-defense stances like boxers or wrestlers.
¶ 8 Money saw Busch punch defendant, and defendant stumbled to the ground. Defendant, who said he was hit on the right cheek, immediately got up. Smith observed defendant throw or punch Busch, and Busch, who up to that point looked like he could defend himself, fell to the ground. Smith stated that Busch lay on the ground with his arms "flat on the asphalt." Although
Smith indicated that Busch was not moving his legs, trying to roll over, or attempting to get away, defendant testified that he and Busch were wrestling while on the ground. According to Smith, defendant straddled Busch and "pummeled" him with punches "really quickly." Although Money and defendant claimed that defendant punched Busch only a few times, surveillance video showed that defendant punched Busch, who was not fighting back, in the face approximately 23 times.
¶ 9 Smith exited his car and yelled, " 'Stop it. The fight is over. You're gonna kill this guy. Get out of here.' " According to defendant, Smith said that defendant "didn't hit [Busch] enough." Smith testified that, after he yelled at defendant, defendant stopped, got off of Busch, looked at Smith, and walked around Busch. Busch was not moving. Defendant then began kicking Busch and stomping his feet on Busch's face. Smith described the stomping as the action kids would take to crush pop cans or smash pumpkins. Smith said "you thrust your leg as hard as you can on to the object to try and crush it." Although Money and defendant claimed that defendant kicked and stomped Busch only a few times, if at all, the surveillance video showed that defendant kicked and stomped Busch, who was not moving, at least 19 times.
¶ 10 Smith then went to his car and called 911. He told the 911 operator that Busch was bleeding badly from a number of places and that blood was "pouring out of the back of [Busch's] head." Smith also told the operator that Busch, who had lost control of his bladder, was "out cold" but was breathing.
¶ 11 Defendant left the scene without Money when, after hearing police sirens, he noticed that Busch "just laid there." Defendant believed that, because Busch was no longer trying to fight him, there was no sense in doing anything else, especially because defendant needed to get home
and get ready for work the next day. Defendant testified that he did not wait for the police, because he would never do so.
¶ 12 When the fight was over, Money, who was hysterical, looked to see if Busch was dead. She testified that she was "thinking [defendant] killed [Busch]."
¶ 13 Officer Nicole VanHorn arrived at the scene and observed that Busch "appeared unresponsive," "was gasping for air," and was "bleeding heavily from the face." Pictures taken of Busch at the scene showed his face so covered in blood that it was difficult to see where his eyes were. An examination of Busch's hands did not reveal any clear wounds, abrasions, or scratches. Busch was placed in a neck brace, intubated, and taken to the hospital.
¶ 14 While police and medics attended to Busch, other officers went to the hotel at which defendant was staying. Defendant testified that he noticed officers in the hotel. Because he was on parole, he thought that the officers would not believe his version of what had happened. Thus, instead of confronting the officers, defendant decided to jump out a third-floor window of the hotel. Defendant stated that he knew when he hit the ground that his legs were broken.
¶ 15 Officers saw defendant talking on a cell phone while sitting outside of the hotel. The police called out to defendant, defendant hung up the phone, and he attempted to stand. Defendant fell down, telling the officers that his leg was hurting. The police called an ambulance, and defendant failed to stand again. When the medics arrived, defendant told them that he hurt his leg when "he was defending his girl." Defendant, who had studied martial arts, elaborated on that when he spoke to the police. He told them that Busch had asked him about drugs, and defendant had told Busch that "[he] wasn't about that." Busch then began swinging at defendant, and defendant's leg was injured when Busch hit him with some object. Defendant admitted that punching someone 15 times would indicate an intent to hurt or kill and that, if
someone is knocked out during a fight, the fight is over and the man left standing should walk away. Defendant also told the police that he did not believe that he took the fight too far, because all he wanted to do was get Busch away from himself and Money. Consistent with that statement, defendant testified at trial that he did not try or want to kill Busch.
¶ 16 During their initial conversation with defendant, the police observed that defendant's eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred. Defendant told the police that he had consumed two beers. Testing revealed that defendant's blood-alcohol concentration was 0.196.
¶ 17 Pictures taken of defendant and his clothing showed that defendant's right cheek was a little inflamed while his right ankle was severely swollen. Blood covered defendant's shirt, pants, and shoes, with a significant amount of blood on his right pant leg and shoe.
¶ 18 Busch testified that, because of the attack, he now suffers with memory issues, painful injuries, and scarring. Busch stated that his nose and jaw were broken; the right side of his face had to be reconstructed; he was placed in a coma to reduce brain swelling; his jaw was wired shut for several months; and doctors believed that he was going to lose his right eye. When he was initially admitted to the hospital, doctors gave him a 1% chance to live, telling his family that there was a very good chance that he would die.
¶ 19 In finding defendant guilty of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery, the court noted that Smith was a credible witness. The court also observed that, although defendant claimed that he attacked Busch because he was afraid of Busch's associates attacking him and Money, defendant never looked around while he was beating Busch, and defendant left the scene without Money. Moreover, the court noted that, although defendant might not have had the intent to kill Busch while he was punching Busch on the ground, the three to five seconds that defendant took to stand up and stop before kicking Busch was enough time for defendant to cool
down and reassess the situation. The court determined that, once defendant began kicking Busch, he possessed the intent to kill him. The court asserted that a "normal human" would know that, when someone is lying motionless and bloody on the ground, jumping as high as one can and impaling that someone with both feet constitutes a substantial step toward first-degree murder.
¶ 20 Defendant moved the court to reconsider, arguing that he did not intend to kill Busch. Rather, defendant claimed that he was trying to defend himself and prevent a future attack. The court denied the motion.
¶ 21 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 22 At issue in this appeal is whether defendant was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted first-degree murder. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67. In doing so, we will not retry the defendant or substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact on questions involving conflicts in the testimony, the credibility of witnesses, or the weight of the evidence. People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48. A defendant's conviction will be reversed only if the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that it justifies a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67.
¶ 23 Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009). In assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact is not required to disregard inferences that normally follow from the evidence. Id. Rather, to sustain a conviction,
"[i]t is sufficient if all of the evidence taken together satisfies the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt." Id.
¶ 24 A person commits attempted first-degree murder when, acting with the intent to kill, he completes an act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of first-degree murder. 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1(a)(1) (West 2014). In this case, defendant challenges only the element of intent.
¶ 25 Proof of intent to kill may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including the character of the attack, the use of a deadly weapon, and the nature and extent of the victim's injuries. People v. Carlisle, 2015 IL App (1st) 131144, ¶ 59. Intent to kill may also be inferred where the defendant commits a willful act, the "direct and natural tendency" of which is to destroy another's life. (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) Id. It is the function of the trier of fact to determine the existence of the intent to kill, and that determination will not be disturbed on review unless it clearly appears that there is a reasonable doubt on the issue. People v. Green, 339 Ill. App. 3d 443, 451 (2003).
¶ 26 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant intended to kill Busch. Although Busch might have been larger than defendant, the evidence revealed that the fight started not because Busch threatened defendant or Money or attempted to harm them. Rather, the fight commenced after Busch started talking to Money, whom he knew. While it is true that Busch punched defendant first, and defendant suffered slight swelling from that punch, defendant retaliated in a manner that far surpassed that initial contact. That is, defendant, who had studied martial arts, knocked Busch to the ground and then straddled Busch, punching him repeatedly in the face. Busch did
not attempt to protect himself in any way. Rather, he lay on the ground motionless while defendant punched him 23 times.
¶ 27 After Smith told defendant to stop or else he was going to kill Busch, defendant did not follow Smith's advice. Instead, defendant paused, stood up, walked around Busch, and then began stomping on Busch's head. Smith clarified that defendant raised his leg and brought it down as hard as he could on Busch's head, and at one point defendant jumped high in the air and landed with both feet on Busch's face. Blood poured out of Busch's head and covered defendant's clothes. Both Smith and Money, the only witnesses to the attack besides defendant and Busch, hypothesized that defendant either would kill Busch or actually did. Added to the brutality of the attack is the fact that the injuries Busch suffered were beyond severe. As the evidence revealed, Busch's chances of surviving the attack were remote at best.
¶ 28 Additionally, we must note that the trial court, which heard and watched the witnesses testify, explicitly found Smith credible and implied that defendant was not. The record supports that conclusion, as defendant's explanations for his actions were implausible or preposterous. For example, defendant testified that he took the drastic step of jumping out a third-story window because he did not want to encounter the police. If that is true, it strongly suggests that defendant did not act in self-defense and knew that he was guilty of a horrific crime. See People v. Moore, 2018 IL App (2d) 160277, ¶ 32. On the other hand, if defendant did not jump out the window, the injuries to his legs only confirmed the brutality of the beating he inflicted on Busch.
¶ 29 Defendant contends that the surrounding circumstances belie the State's position that he acted with the intent to kill. According to defendant, the fact that he "had ample time and ability to make sure Busch was dead," coupled with the fact that he "stopped as soon as he saw that Busch was unconscious," mandates a conclusion that he did not act with the intent to kill Busch.
In support of this argument, defendant relies on three cases. People v. Garrett, 216 Ill. App. 3d 348 (1991); People v. Jones, 184 Ill. App. 3d 412 (1989); People v. Thomas, 127 Ill. App. 2d 444 (1970).
¶ 30 In Thomas, the defendant banged the victim's head against a chest of drawers, hit her in the head repeatedly, and picked at her face with a knife. Thomas, 127 Ill. App. 2d at 447. On appeal, the court sua sponte addressed whether the defendant should have received separate sentences for attempted murder and aggravated battery. Id. at 455. In addressing that issue, the court determined simply that "there was insufficient proof that [the] defendant intended or attempted to commit [murder]." Id. at 456.
¶ 31 In Jones, the appellate court held that the State failed to prove that the three defendants intended to kill the victim, where the evidence showed that the defendants hit the victim with a gun, threatened to kill him, kicked him, and "stomped" on his head several times. Jones, 184 Ill. App. 3d at 416. After addressing Thomas, the court stressed that, while one of the defendants was armed with a gun, they "did not fire the gun but used it to beat" the victim. Id. at 430. Moreover, the court noted that, while the victim's injuries, which included lacerations and a broken nose, were serious, "there was no evidence presented that they were life-threatening." Id.
¶ 32 In Garrett, the defendant held a knife to the victim's throat, threatened to kill the victim, and kicked the victim's face. Garrett, 216 Ill. App. 3d at 350-51. Although the doctor who treated the victim (who had lost consciousness, lost two teeth, and suffered lacerations to his face) said that the victim's injuries "could [have been] considered *** life-threatening," the victim was released from the hospital within four hours after admission. Id. at 351. The appellate court found that the State's evidence was insufficient, noting that "the character of the attack on [the victim] was not of the type that justifies an inference of an intent to kill." Id. at
354. Citing Jones, the court observed that, while the defendant had carried a knife during the assault, he did not use it. Id.
¶ 33 In response to these cases, the State cites People v. Scott, 271 Ill. App. 3d 307 (1994). There, the evidence showed that the defendant severely beat the victim and, when asked about what happened to the victim, he said, " 'I took care of her.' " Id. at 309. Although the doctor who treated the victim classified her injuries as not life-threatening, the evidence revealed that, after the beating, the victim bled from her eyes and ears, was in the hospital for 22 days, needed surgery on her eyes, and was unable to walk without assistance for four months. Id. at 310. The court distinguished Garrett and Jones on the basis that, in both of those cases, the defendant "possessed a gun or a knife at the time of the crime but did not use it." Id. at 311. Moreover, the court dismissed the fact that the victim's injuries were not life-threatening, noting that the defendant "would have had no way of knowing this at the time of the incident." Id. While the court acknowledged that the defendant's use of his fists did not give rise to an inference of an intent to kill, it held that the State proved his intent based on "the extreme and extended beating inflicted upon [the victim], coupled with [the defendant's] size and strength." Id. at 312.
¶ 34 Here, the facts more closely resembled those of Scott than of Thomas, Jones, or Garrett. Unlike in Thomas, Jones, or Garett, defendant did not have a weapon that he could have used to kill Busch. Rather, like the defendant in Scott, defendant inflicted an extended beating on Busch, who, during much of the fight, was defenseless. Moreover, the injuries that defendant inflicted were obviously life-threatening. Indeed, as the trial court noted, it seems very unlikely that defendant did not intend to kill Busch as he jumped on Busch's head with both feet while Busch lay on the ground motionless. To say that defendant must not have intended to kill Busch because he left while Busch was still breathing is simply untenable. Not only does such a
position ignore the brutality of the attack, but the evidence revealed that defendant departed from the scene because he heard police and saw that Busch was not moving.
¶ 35 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 36 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County. As part of our judgment, we grant the State's request that defendant be assessed $50 as costs for this appeal. 55 ILCS 5/4-2002(a) (West 2016); see also People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166, 178 (1978).
¶ 37 Affirmed.