People v. Carswell

2026 IL App (1st) 231884

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 1-23-1884
• Status: Published

Opinion

2026 IL App (1st) 231884

No. 1-23-1884

Filed February 4, 2026

Third Division

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22400523001 ) TERRENCE CARSWELL, ) Honorable ) Shawnte Raines-Welch, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Lampkin and Rochford concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 After a bench trial, Terrence Carswell 1 was convicted of resisting arrest (720 ILCS

5/31-1(a)(1) (West 2022)). On appeal, he argues (1) the evidence was insufficient because the State

failed to prove him guilty of an underlying offense beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial

court erred by admitting out-of-court statements. We affirm. 2

1 The briefs spell the defendant’s first name as “Terrance.” The charging document spelled his name “Terrence,” as did the defendant in testimony. We use the spelling the defendant provided. 2 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order. No. 1-23-1884

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 Carswell was charged with criminal trespass to real property, obstructing a peace officer,

and resisting arrest. Before trial, the State nol-prossed the criminal trespass count. Trial testimony

produced the following account. Police officers responded to a report of a residential burglary on

Scoville Avenue in Berwyn, Illinois, at 2 a.m. on November 27, 2022. The officers investigated

the premises and found the intruder was no longer present. During their investigation, the officers

discovered Carswell sitting on the front porch. Officer Chance Emlund asked him what he was

doing. Carswell responded that he was part of a neighborhood watch and wanted to know why the

officers were there. Officer Emlund asked Carswell to leave. Carswell moved to the sidewalk but

began swearing at the officers. Officer Emlund suspected Carswell was intoxicated.

¶4 Officer Diaz 3 asked the homeowner if she knew Carswell. Over objection, the court

permitted Officer Diaz to testify that the homeowner said she did not know Carswell and she

wanted him off her property. Officer Diaz informed Carswell that the homeowner wanted him to

leave. He responded, “F*** you!” and raised his middle finger. The officers continued to direct

Carswell to leave, informing him he would be arrested for obstructing their investigation if he did

not leave. Carswell remained, however, and continued stepping onto the property.

¶5 Eventually, the officers told Carswell he was under arrest. Carswell refused to place his

hands behind his back and made his body tense. The officers tackled him to the ground. Carswell

refused to allow the officers to place him in handcuffs, keeping his hands under his abdomen as he

lay face down. After a five-minute struggle, the officers turned Carswell on his side and pulled his

arms behind his back, placing him in handcuffs.

3 The record does not contain Officer Diaz’s first name. -2- No. 1-23-1884

¶6 Carswell testified to his version of events. He was in the vicinity and noticed police activity.

He did not live at the residence but approached to ask the officers what was going on. He walked

up to the first step but not onto the porch. The officers asked him to leave, and he moved to the

sidewalk. Carswell denied that he stepped back onto the property. He estimated the time it took

the officers to place him in handcuffs was two minutes.

¶7 In closing arguments, defense counsel pointed to subsection (d) of the resisting statute (id.

§ 31-1(d)), which the legislature added by enacting Public Act 101-652, § 10-215 (eff. Jan. 1,

2023), commonly known as the SAFE-T Act. See Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 4. 4 Subsection

(d) states: “A person shall not be subject to arrest for resisting arrest under this Section unless there

is an underlying offense for which the person was initially subject to arrest.” 720 ILCS 5/31-1(d)

(West 2022). Counsel asserted that subsection (d) required the State to prove not only that the

defendant resisted arrest but also to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed

a predicate offense for which the defendant was initially subject to arrest. In this case, she

contended, the State failed to prove the predicate offense of criminal trespass to real property (id.

§ 21-3) because the evidence to establish the elements of that offense relied on an inadmissible

hearsay statement of the property owner.

¶8 The trial court rejected defense counsel’s interpretation of the statute, finding that

subsection (d) did not require the State to prove a predicate offense. Its plain language, the court

reasoned, referred only to whether a person is subject to arrest, not to whether a person could be

convicted for resisting arrest. If the legislature intended to add proof of a predicate offense as an

element that must be proven to convict a person for resisting arrest, the court observed, it “could

4 Subsection (d) was also included in Public Act 102-28, § 50 (eff. June 25, 2021). Thus, the amendment to section 31-1 took effect June 25, 2021, before both the conduct at issue here and the effective date of the SAFE-T Act. -3- No. 1-23-1884

have easily amended this in the bill *** but they did not.” The court also pointed to the sole

statement from the SAFE-T Act’s sponsor regarding the amendment, which reads: “In regards to

resisting arrest, the Bill requires a predicate offense to charge someone with resisting arrest. Please

stop charging black folks for resisting arrest when there has not been a predicate offense.” 101st

Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, Jan. 13, 2021, at 7 (statements of Representative Slaughter).

The court noted that the statement addressed whether persons should be charged with resisting

arrest but did “not address or imply or implicate the burden of proof that’s required to sustain that

charge at the juncture of trial.” Thus, the court would not “read into the statute something that

doesn’t exist.”

¶9 The court went on to find that the officers had probable cause to arrest Carswell for

obstructing their investigation and resisting arrest. The court also found Carswell guilty of both

obstructing a peace officer and resisting arrest and sentenced him to 12 months of conditional

discharge. Carswell filed a motion to reconsider. The court granted the motion in part, vacating the

obstruction conviction upon finding that Carswell’s actions did not amount to a material

impediment to their investigation. The court reiterated its reading of subsection (d), observing “If

the legislature wanted to impose an additional burden of proof on the State, they would have, they

could have *** [i]t does not require that the resisting charge can only be sustained if there’s a

finding of guilty on the underlying offense.” The court reduced Carswell’s term of conditional

discharge to six months. This appeal followed.

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 On appeal, Carswell raises two issues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of

resisting arrest because the State failed to prove an underlying offense beyond a reasonable doubt

-4- No. 1-23-1884

and (2) the trial court erred in allowing Officer Diaz to testify to the homeowner’s statement over

his hearsay objection.

¶ 12 Carswell argues that subsection (d) either adds an element to the offense of resisting arrest

or creates an exception that the State must negate. Under either construction, he contends, the

provision requires the State to prove a defendant was subject to arrest for an underlying offense to

sustain a conviction for resisting arrest. The trial court interpreted subsection (d) to require only

that the State show there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for an underlying offense.

Carswell argues the trial court’s interpretation was incorrect and, furthermore, that the evidence

was insufficient to prove he had committed criminal trespass to real property. Thus, he contends

that either his conviction should be reversed or we should remand this matter for a new trial.

¶ 13 This appeal requires us to interpret subsection (d). We review the interpretation of a statute

de novo. People v. Wallace, 2025 IL 130173, ¶ 12. When interpreting a statute, our primary

objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent. Id. The most reliable indicator

of that intent is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning, and we may not

depart from that language by reading in exceptions, restrictions, or conditions. Id.

¶ 14 Carswell relies on People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497 (2010), to argue that subsection (d) adds

an element to the offense of resisting arrest, which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Close, our supreme court considered whether the restricted driving permit (RDP) exception to

the offense of driving with a revoked license (625 ILCS 5/6-303 (West 2006)) constituted an

additional element of the offense or was solely a matter of defense. Close, 238 Ill. 2d at 508. To

make that distinction:

“[I]t is the rule in this State that where an act is made criminal, with exceptions embraced

in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the People must

-5- No. 1-23-1884

allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the

precise crime has been committed. In other words, where the exception is descriptive of

the offense it must be negatived in order to charge the defendant with the offense. On the

other hand, if the exception, instead of being a part of the description of the offense, merely

withdraws certain acts or certain persons from the operation of the statute it need not be

negatived, and its position in the act, whether in the same section or another part of the act,

is of no consequence. [Citations.] Exceptions are generally mere matters of defense.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

The court went on to find that the RDP exception was not an element of section 6-303, as it was

not descriptive of the offense and merely withdrew certain persons from the scope of the statute.

Id. at 509.

¶ 15 Here, Carswell contends subsection (d) is an element, as it is descriptive of the offense of

resisting arrest. He notes that unlike the RDP exception at issue in Close, which removed a class

of people subject to the statute, subsection (d) is applicable to all people. Furthermore, Carswell

asserts that the provision makes a conviction contingent on whether the arresting officers had a

basis for making an arrest. For support, he points to Representative Slaughter’s statements that

“the Bill requires a predicate offense to charge someone with resisting arrest. Please stop charging

black folks for resisting arrest when there has not been a predicate offense.” 101st Ill. Gen. Assem.,

House Proceedings, Jan. 13, 2021, at 7 (statements of Representative Slaughter). Carswell argues

these remarks indicate the legislature’s intent to prevent a person from being charged with resisting

arrest when there were no grounds to arrest the person for a predicate offense. In the alternative,

Carswell contends subsection (d) provides either an exception to the offense of resisting arrest or

an affirmative defense. The consequence of any of these constructions, he notes, is that the State

-6- No. 1-23-1884

has the burden to prove a defendant was subject to a predicate offense to sustain a conviction for

resisting arrest.

¶ 16 We find that subsection (d) does not describe the offense of resisting arrest. Nor does it

provide an exception to the offense or an affirmative defense. By subsection (d)’s plain language,

the provision conditions a person being “subject to arrest for resisting arrest” upon “an underlying

offense for which the person was initially subject to arrest.” In other words, a person is not subject

to arrest for resisting arrest without first being subject to arrest for some other offense. Notably,

the statute does not address whether a person can be convicted for resisting arrest. To construe

subsection (d) as an element of the offense, exception, or affirmative defense would amount to

adding a provision or limitation the legislature did not. “We do not rewrite statutes to add

provisions or limitations the legislature did not include.” Martin v. Goodrich Corp., 2025 IL

130509, ¶ 28.

¶ 17 Further, the legislature has demonstrated its ability to express exceptions and affirmative

defenses in clear, unambiguous language throughout the Criminal Code of 2012 (Criminal Code).

For example, subsection (c) of section 31-1 (720 ILCS 5/31-1(c) (West 2024)) provides:

“It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this Section if a person resists or obstructs the

performance of one known by the person to be a firefighter by returning to or remaining in

a dwelling, residence, building, or other structure to rescue or to attempt to rescue any

person.” (Emphasis added.)

Another example appears in the statute for criminal trespass to real property: “This Section does

not apply to the following persons while serving process[.]” (Emphasis added.) Id. § 21-3(j).

Similarly, the aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon statute prohibits carrying a weapon on

one’s person or vehicle “except when on his or her land.” (Emphasis added.) Id. § 24-1.6(a)(1). No

-7- No. 1-23-1884

comparable language appears in subsection (d). When the legislature has clearly expressed a

concept elsewhere, it weighs against construing the same concept where it has not. See Wallace,

2025 IL 130173, ¶ 23 (observing that the legislature expressed a minimum age for qualifying

offenses in the Class X sentencing statute but did not in the armed habitual criminal statute); see

also People v. Smith, 71 Ill. 2d 95, 106 (1978) (“Whenever the legislature intends a provision to

constitute an affirmative defense to a crime it has labeled it as such.”). Accordingly, since the

legislature did not express an exception or affirmative defense in subsection (d), we do not find

that the provision operates as such.

¶ 18 Instead of an additional element, exception, or defense, subsection (d) merely makes an

arrest for resisting arrest without a predicate offense unlawful. This does not give rise to an

exception or defense, however, because the law does not permit a person to resist an unlawful

arrest. Our supreme court has held that section 31-1 of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/31-1 (West

2022)) must be read in conjunction with section 7-7 (id. § 7-7). People v. Locken, 59 Ill. 2d 459,

464 (1974). Section 7-7 provides:

“A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made

either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer

to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is

unlawful.” 720 ILCS 5/7-7 (West 2022).

Accordingly, the court concluded that “resistance of even an unlawful arrest by a known officer is

a violation of section 31-1.” Locken, 59 Ill. 2d at 465; see People v. Villarreal, 152 Ill. 2d 368, 376-

77 (1992) (following Locken and reiterating that resistance of even an unlawful arrest violates

section 31-1); see also People v. McIntosh, 2020 IL App (5th) 170068, ¶ 47 (“[A]n arrestee has no

right to use force to resist an arrest by a known officer, even if the officer is effectuating an unlawful

-8- No. 1-23-1884

arrest.”). The rationale underlying this rule is “the importance of allowing police the ability to

effectively perform their duties, without interference from citizens resorting to self-help remedies.

In our society, courts determine whether the police have exceeded their power, and if so, remedies

are made available to those individuals harmed.” Villarreal, 152 Ill. 2d at 380. To construe

subsection (d) as an element, exception, or affirmative defense would undermine this policy and

effectively permit persons to resort to self-help in contravention of section 7-7 in some

circumstances.

¶ 19 The legislature has not amended section 7-7 since Locken was decided. “[I]n amending a

statute, the legislature is presumed to have been aware of judicial decisions interpreting the statute

and to have acted with this knowledge.” Bruso v. Alexian Brothers Hospital, 178 Ill. 2d 445, 458

(1997). Thus, we presume that when enacting the SAFE-T Act, the legislature was aware of Locken

and knew that section 31-1 was to be read in conjunction with section 7-7. Since the legislature

did not amend section 7-7, resistance to an unlawful arrest remains a violation of section 31-1. For

these reasons, we reject Carswell’s interpretations of subsection (d).

¶ 20 Carswell also challenges the trial court’s ruling permitting Officer Diaz to testify to the

homeowner’s statement over his hearsay objection. As Carswell frames the issue, however, this

matter is dependent upon his construction of subsection (d). That is, without Officer Diaz’s

testimony, the State could not prove a predicate offense of criminal trespass to real property to

sustain a conviction for resisting arrest. Our rejection of Carswell’s interpretation of subsection (d)

makes this issue moot, as a resolution cannot affect the outcome. “As a general rule, courts in

Illinois do not decide moot questions, render advisory opinions, or consider issues where the result

will not be affected regardless of how those issues are decided.” In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345,

351 (2009). None of the exceptions to mootness are applicable here. See People v. Cousins, 2023

-9- No. 1-23-1884

IL App (1st) 230234, ¶ 12 (“[T]here are three exceptions to mootness: (1) the public-interest

exception; (2) the capable-of-repetition-yet-avoiding-review exception; and (3) the collateral

consequences exception.”). Accordingly, we do not review this issue.

¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 23 Affirmed.

- 10 - No. 1-23-1884

People v. Carswell, 2026 IL App (1st) 231884

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 22400523001; the Hon. Shawnte Raines-Welch, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Thomas Joseph Skelton, for of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Eileen O’Neill Burke, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (John E. for Nowak, Matthew Connors, and Lindsey Patton, Assistant Appellee: State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

- 11 -