Thus, defendant's reasoning for striking Monroe was not relevant to the mens rea element or an affirmative defense. ΒΆ 24 Defendant contends his intent is relevant to determine whether his striking was insulting or provoking because it is part of the context in which the contact occurred. In support of his argument he cites People v. Peck, 260 Ill. App. 3d 812, 814, 633 N.E.2d 222, 223 (1994), and People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill. App. 3d 649, 651, 621 N.E.2d 206, 207 (1993), where the defendants argued their actions did not result in an insulting or provoking contact. The Peck court cited the holding in d'Avis that " 'a particular physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs.
ΒΆ 20 Defendant also calls our attention to the decisions in Fultz, 2012 IL App (2d) 101101, Wrencher, 2011 IL App (4th) 080619, People v. DeRosario, 397 Ill.App.3d 332 (2009), People v. Peck, 260 Ill.App.3d 812 (1994), People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill.App.3d 649 (1993), and People v. Dunker, 217 Ill.App.3d 410 (1991). He contends these decisions demonstrate that nearly every case construing the phrase "insulting or provoking" agrees the statute requires evidence that the victim finds the contact insulting or provoking.
Rather, "a particular physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs." Peck, 260 Ill. App. 3d at 814 (quoting People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill. App. 3d 649 (1993)).ΒΆ 14 After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense of battery beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rather, " 'a particular physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs.' " Peck, 260 Ill. App. 3d at 814 (quoting People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill. App. 3d 649 (1993)).ΒΆ 16 Here, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Campbell and thus committed battery.
Rather, "a particular physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs." Peck, 260 Ill. App. 3d at 814 (quoting People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill. App. 3d 649 (1993)).ΒΆ 16 After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with E.H. and thus committed battery.
Regarding the insulting or provoking nature of spitting on another, we note that "a particular physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs." ( People v. d'Avis (1993), 250 Ill. App.3d 649, 651, 621 N.E.2d 206, 207.) In d'Avis, the defendant, a medical doctor, was convicted of battery of an insulting or provoking nature for masturbating while performing a rectal examination on a patient.
If that were the case, we would not look to the context, the relationship of the parties, and the reaction of the victim at the time. As the First District stated in People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill.App.3d 649, 657 *** (1993), '[W]hat may be an innocent touching in one instance, may be interpreted quite differently in a different set of circumstances." [Citation.] In DeRosario, the physical contact was minor; the defendant's knee touched the victim's back and hip while he sat behind her in a smoking lounge.
Although it is possible defendant experienced fear at that moment, we are unpersuaded by defendant's argument given the setting in which defendant's actions occurred. See People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill.App.3d 649, 651 (1993) ("physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs"). The record demonstrates that defendant understood that Officers Bullard and Welch were court security officers.
Id. (quoting People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill.App.3d 649, 651 (1993)).
ΒΆ 42 Next, defendant argues the State failed to prove his conduct resulted in contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Officer Bailey." '[A] particular physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs.'" People v. Peck, 260 Ill.App.3d 812, 814, 633 N.E.2d 222, 223 (1994) (quoting People v. d'Avis, 250 Ill.App.3d 649, 651, 621 N.E.2d 206, 207 (1993)). This court has noted "[t]he victim does not have to testify he or she was provoked; the trier of fact can make that inference from the victim's reaction at the time."