People v. Cole

2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: July 25, 2024
• Docket: 2-23-0541
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U No. 2-23-0541 Order filed July 25, 2024

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Lake County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 22-CM-1550 ) NORMAN C. COLE, ) Honorable ) George T. Pappas, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE MULLEN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McLaren and Justice Schostok concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of violating an order of protection by phoning the complainant. Although the State did not produce phone records to establish when the phone call in question was made, we uphold the trial court’s finding that the complainant testified credibly that defendant made the call after he was served with the order of protection.

¶2 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Lake County, defendant, Norman C. Cole,

was found guilty of violating an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(a)(1)(i) (West 2020)).

Defendant argues on appeal that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We

affirm. 2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On October 24, 2022, the complaining witness, Keyana Wiley, obtained an emergency

order of protection. The order was effective until November 14, 2022, and barred defendant from

having any contact or communication with Wiley. In her petition requesting the order, Wiley

claimed that she found a tracking device attached to her car and had reason to believe that

defendant placed it there. The order was served on defendant at 3:10 p.m. on October 26, 2022.

¶5 The information charged defendant with violating the order of protection by contacting

Wiley on or about October 26, 2022. The State’s theory at trial was that, on October 26, 2022,

defendant phoned Wiley, violating the order.

¶6 Before summarizing the evidence at the trial, we note that defense counsel remarked during

a pretrial proceeding that there were “some issues as far as telephone records not matching up with

what is purported to have happened here. I think the State is looking for an opportunity to gather

more information about why the telephone records do not match the allegations.” The prosecutor

acknowledged that defense counsel’s remark was accurate.

¶7 At trial, Wiley testified that on the evening of October 26, 2022, while driving from

Chicago to Zion with her friend Brishna, she received several telephone calls from an unknown

number. At 9:20 p.m., she answered one of the calls and recognized defendant’s voice. About 5 to

10 seconds after Wiley answered the call, Brishna started recording the call using her cell phone’s

video camera. Brishna’s phone shut off before the call was completed. Wiley testified that the

recording missed roughly the final five seconds of the call. Wiley was asked about the content of

the call:

“Q. *** Did the defendant say anything to you?

A. Yes.

-2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

Q. And what did he say during that conversation?

A. He was upset about the order of protection.

Q. And did he say anything else to you?

A. No. I started speaking.

Q. On this phone conversation, both you and [defendant] were speaking back and

forth?

A. Yes.”

Over objection, the call recording was admitted into evidence and played at trial. On the recording,

which lasts for 37 seconds, Wiley is irate and lambastes defendant for placing a tracking device

on her car. Defendant says comparatively little and sounds calm. Neither Wiley nor defendant

mentions the protective order. Wiley testified that she was “very angry” on the call because

defendant “had a tracker on [her] car and [was] watching [her] for two months[.]” Wiley was

unsure of the exact date she told the police about the call, but she knew that she did not tell them

on the same day as the call.

¶8 On cross-examination, Wiley denied calling defendant at 9:50 p.m. on October 26, 2022.

She believed that she discovered the tracking device on October 22, 2022. She was upset and called

defendant that day. After defendant’s October 26, 2022, call, she did not contact the police

immediately, but did so after defendant continued to text her. She reiterated that she was unsure of

the exact date she contacted the police, but she believed she did so within days, not weeks, of his

call. She denied waiting until November 17, 2022, to contact the police. She denied calling

defendant at 10:33 p.m. on November 14, 2022.

¶9 Defendant testified that he spoke with Wiley “throughout” October 2022—before about

October 24. Defendant learned of the order of protection from a U.S. Customs official on October

-3- 2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

25, 2022, when he returned from a weeklong trip to the Dominican Republic. Defendant testified

that the recording played during the State’s case-in-chief was of a call he received before October

24, 2022, while he was in the Dominican Republic. He added, “I woke up to the phone call, and I

was getting yelled at, someone screaming at me about a tracking device. So I’m very aware of the

conversation. I know *** when that conversation actually took place.” Defendant also testified

that he received phone calls from Wiley at 10:50 p.m. on October 26, 2022, and at 10:33 p.m. on

November 14, 2022. Defendant introduced into evidence screenshots from his phone showing

missed calls from Wiley’s phone number on those dates and times. Defendant denied calling Wiley

on October 26, 2022.

¶ 10 In closing arguments, defense counsel stressed that no phone records or metadata were

admitted to establish the date of the phone call that was the basis of the charge. Counsel also noted

that the order of protection was not mentioned on the recorded phone call admitted into evidence.

¶ 11 The trial court found defendant guilty. In doing so, the court “found both [Wiley] and

[defendant] to be credible.” As to Wiley, the court commented that her version of events “made

sense” and “wasn’t something that was counter to common sense.” The court rejected defendant’s

testimony that the recorded phone call was made before the order of protection was issued. The

court elaborated that there would have been “absolutely no reason” to record a phone call “on

another day before the order of protection [was issued].”

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. He disputes

neither the issuance of the order of protection nor its proper service on him. Rather, he insists that

Wiley’s testimony was not credible and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt that he called Wiley after being served with the order of protection.

-4- 2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

¶ 14 In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction,

“ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond

a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985)

(quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Generally, “a reviewing court will not

substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on issues involving the weight of evidence or the

credibility of witnesses.” People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 224-25 (2009). The trier of

fact’s credibility determinations are not sacrosanct, but they will not be disturbed on appeal unless

against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Bishop, 2024 IL App (2d) 230106, ¶ 54, pet.

for leave to appeal pending (filed May 1, 2024). “A finding is against the manifest weight of the

evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or if the finding is unreasonable,

arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170, ¶ 17.

A witness’s testimony cannot support a conviction where, because of serious inconsistencies and

repeated impeachment, “no reasonable trier of fact could have found [the] testimony credible.”

People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 545 (1999). “We will reverse a criminal conviction only if the

evidence was so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of the

defendant's guilt.” People v. Gumila, 2012 IL App (2d) 110761, ¶ 61.

¶ 15 In arguing that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the order

of protection, defendant notes that the State failed to introduce phone records into evidence to

corroborate either Wiley’s testimony that defendant called her after he was served with the order

of protection or her testimony that he continued to text her after the phone call. Defendant similarly

notes that the State neither called Wiley’s friend Brishna to testify nor introduced metadata for the

-5- 2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

recording from Brishna’s phone to confirm when the recording was made. The argument is

unpersuasive.

¶ 16 If evidence of guilt is sufficient to sustain a conviction, the State’s failure to introduce

additional evidence is not grounds for reversing the conviction. See People v. Beacham, 50 Ill.

App. 3d 695, 700 (1977) (“The State is not required to present every witness to a crime or every

possible expert witness who might testify to some facet of a crime, and it need not seek out and

disprove every possible alternative explanation of a crime before an accused can be found guilty.”).

It is firmly established that “ ‘[t]he testimony of a single witness, if it is positive and the witness

credible[,] is sufficient to convict even though it is contradicted by the accused.’ ” People v. Myles,

2020 IL App (4th) 180652, ¶ 47 (quoting People v. Hampton, 44 Ill. 2d 41, 45 (1969)). In his reply

brief, defendant argues that Wiley was not a credible witness, so this principle does not apply.

However, “it is the function of the trier of fact to weigh the credibility of witnesses.” Id. Here, the

trial court specifically found Wiley to be credible. The relevant question is whether that finding

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. It was not.

¶ 17 Defendant claims that Wiley lied repeatedly during her testimony. He notes that, although

she denied calling him at 9:50 p.m. on October 26, 2022, or at 10:33 p.m. on November 14, 2022,

screenshots from defendant’s phone show calls from Wiley’s phone number on those dates and

times. However, the screenshots show the calls as “missed” calls. The fact that the calls were made

from Wiley’s phone is not conclusive proof that she made the calls, let alone that she did so

intentionally. Even if she knowingly made the calls, she might have forgotten making them. And

even if she had lied about the calls, the trial court was not required to reject her testimony in its

entirety, particularly since neither the calls nor her denials had a substantive bearing on defendant’s

-6- 2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

guilt or innocence. See People v. Porter, 277 Ill. App. 3d 194, 200 (1995) (“[T]he trier-of-fact is

free to accept or reject as much or as little as it sees fit of a witness’[s] testimony.”)

¶ 18 Defendant also contends that Wiley lied about when she reported to the police that

defendant violated the order of protection. According to defendant, although Wiley testified that

she believed that she reported the violation within a matter of days, it actually took her nearly a

month to do so. Defendant references the portion of Wiley’s testimony in which she was asked

whether she waited until November 17, 2022, to contact the police. Contrary to defendant’s

representation, Wiley denied that she waited until November 17, 2022. Wiley’s testimony that she

waited days, not weeks, to contact the police was uncontradicted and unimpeached.

¶ 19 Defendant further argues that the content of the recorded phone call supports his testimony

that the call occurred before he was served with the order of protection. It is undisputed that Wiley

spoke with defendant by telephone after discovering the tracking device but before obtaining an

order of protection. Defendant contends that this call was the recorded call played in court.

According to defendant, if the conversation indeed took place after the order of protection was

issued, “logic would dictate that [Wiley] would be angry about [defendant] contacting her, not

exclusively about the purported tracking device.” Defendant notes that Wiley, not he, sounded

upset during the call. He also notes that, although Wiley testified that defendant called her because

he was upset about the order of protection, the order was not mentioned during the recorded call.

¶ 20 We are not persuaded. Notably, by asserting an unsupported “logic would dictate”

characterization of the conversation’s subject matter, the defendant asks us to draw inferences

contrary to the trial court’s findings. Yet the decision of what inferences to draw from the evidence

belonged to the trial court as trier of fact. The court’s inferences were reasonable. The recorded

portion of the telephone conversation was 37 seconds long. Wiley testified that Brishna’s recording

-7- 2024 IL App (2d) 230541-U

began 5 to 10 seconds into the conversation and ended about 5 seconds before the conversation

ended. Thus, only roughly 70 to 80 percent of the conversation was recorded. Because the

recording was incomplete, it does not refute Wiley’s testimony that defendant called to complain

about the order of protection.

¶ 21 Defendant also stresses that, before trial, the prosecutor alluded to inconsistencies between

the relevant phone records and Wiley’s allegations. The prosecutor’s comment has no bearing on

the sufficiency of the evidence because no evidence of any such discrepancies was presented at

trial.

¶ 22 Finally, to establish that the trial court did not hold the State to its burden of proving guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant notes an isolated remark by the court that Wiley’s testimony

was not “counter to common sense,” which defendant interprets as a lower bar than beyond a

reasonable doubt. Defendant inaccurately suggests that this was the sole basis upon which the court

resolved the conflicting testimony between two credible witnesses. To the contrary, although the

court stated that defendant was credible, it concluded that there would have been no reason for

Wiley to record a phone call she placed to defendant before she obtained the order of protection.

¶ 23 We cannot say that the evidence was so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to

create a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.

¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County.

¶ 26 Affirmed.

-8-