2022 IL App (1st) 192592-U No. 1-19-2592 Order filed March 24, 2022 Fourth Division
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). ______________________________________________________________________________ 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. 19 DV 75147 ) RICCO DORR, ) Honorable ) Megan Goldish, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Martin concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for domestic battery is affirmed where the evidence was sufficient to establish that he slapped his ex-girlfriend.
¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant Ricco Dorr was found guilty of one count of
misdemeanor domestic battery and sentenced to 210 days in Cook County Jail. On appeal,
defendant argues that the complaining witness’s testimony at trial was so unsatisfactory that no
reasonable person could accept it as credible, and therefore he was not proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. We affirm. No. 1-19-2592
¶3 Defendant was charged with one count of misdemeanor domestic battery predicated on
making intentional physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature by slapping his ex-
girlfriend, Emily Garcia, on her face (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2018)), on September 5,
2019.
¶4 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to admit propensity evidence of domestic
violence incidents involving defendant and Garcia. The court denied the State’s motion as to a
2016 incident but allowed evidence of two incidents that occurred in 2019.
¶5 At trial, Garcia testified that she and defendant had dated from 2015 until June 22, 2019.
Around 6 p.m. on September 4, 2019, defendant came to Garcia’s apartment while she was home
alone. Garcia had an “understanding” with defendant that he needed to remove his belongings
from the home. They spoke for some time and eventually engaged in sexual activity. While sitting
on the bed around 3:30 a.m., immediately after the sexual activity occurred, defendant slapped
Garcia on the left side of her face with his right hand. Garcia dressed, left the room, and called the
police. Defendant grabbed the phone from her and hung up. Ten to fifteen minutes later, the police
arrived, spoke with Garcia and defendant, and arrested defendant. Garcia had no visible injuries,
and the police suggested that it was not necessary to have a technician come out.
¶6 Garcia further testified that on June 30, 2019, she was pregnant with defendant’s child, but
lived separately from him. She was at home alone and defendant “barged in” and punched her left
cheek. At the time, Garcia was considering an order of protection against defendant, and he was
not to be around her. Garcia called the police, went to the hospital, and filed a police report.
Defendant was arrested.
-2- No. 1-19-2592
¶7 Garcia also testified that on January 17, 2019, she and defendant were at home watching
TV. Garcia was uncertain whether defendant spoke to her or whether she was experiencing
“psychotic episodes,” but recalled that defendant stated that she “was the one threatening him.”
The situation became physical and defendant rolled on top of Garcia, grabbed a rag, and stuffed it
in her mouth. Then, he shoved her head and she scratched him. Defendant barricaded her in the
room for three days and took her phone, so she could not call the police. She eventually left the
house with defendant, and when they returned, she called the police. Defendant was arrested, and
the police documented Garcia’s injuries. The State published photos of Garcia’s face with
scratches from the incident and entered the photos into evidence.
¶8 On cross-examination, Garcia testified that she had psychotic episodes in the past, but due
to a miscarriage, she was not taking medication for her mental health on September 5, 2019, or at
the time of trial. Garcia clarified that intercourse had not occurred, but that she and defendant had
engaged in some form of sexual activity and defendant slapped her about 10 minutes after, while
they were sitting on the bed and not facing one another. Defendant sat on her left, and no words
were exchanged between the sexual activity and the slap. When the police arrived, they offered to
call a technician and an ambulance, but there were no visible marks on her face, and they suggested
that medical services were not necessary. Garcia testified that she did not specifically refuse
medical treatment.
¶9 Chicago police officer Jamie Diaz testified that he and his partner arrived at Garcia’s
apartment a few minutes after receiving the call about a domestic disturbance on September 5,
2019. Diaz spoke to Garcia, who was upset, and his partner spoke with defendant. Defendant was
-3- No. 1-19-2592
agitated and aggressive, and he screamed obscenities following his arrest and during his transport
to the station.
¶ 10 On cross-examination, Diaz confirmed that the officers’ report did not record that
defendant was agitated and aggressive. Diaz did not see visible injuries on Garcia. On redirect
examination, Diaz stated that he called an evidence technician in order to “make notification that
[Garcia] refused” services.
¶ 11 The State entered certified copies of defendant’s convictions that resulted from the
incidents in January and June 2019 and rested.
¶ 12 Defendant moved for a directed finding, arguing that the State failed to meet its burden due
to the discrepancies in Garcia’s testimony, specifically regarding when the slap occurred and
whether she had been offered medical help. Additionally, the defense argued that Garcia’s
description of her and defendant’s positions during the slap appeared incompatible with her
account of what happened. The trial court denied the motion.
¶ 13 After closing arguments, the trial court found defendant guilty of domestic battery. It stated
that it found Garcia credible, citing her frankness and her ability to describe her and defendant’s
positions when he slapped her. The court noted that Garcia provided two different time frames for
when the slap occurred, but that Diaz, who observed defendant and Garcia after the event,
corroborated Garcia’s account regarding “the timing and the nature of the incident.” The court
added that it “didn’t really find [the propensity evidence] relevant.”
¶ 14 Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 280 days in Cook County Jail.
Defendant then filed two motions: one for reconsideration of the guilty finding or, in the
-4- No. 1-19-2592
alternative, for a new trial, and another to reconsider his sentence. The court denied the former
motion but granted the latter and reduced defendant’s sentence to 210 days.
¶ 15 On appeal, defendant argues that Garcia’s testimony was insufficient to prove that he
committed domestic battery. According to defendant, Garcia’s descriptions of when the slap
occurred, and her and defendant’s positions at the time of the slap, are contradictory. Further,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2022 IL App (1st) 192592-U No. 1-19-2592 Order filed March 24, 2022 Fourth Division
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). ______________________________________________________________________________ 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. 19 DV 75147 ) RICCO DORR, ) Honorable ) Megan Goldish, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Martin concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for domestic battery is affirmed where the evidence was sufficient to establish that he slapped his ex-girlfriend.
¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant Ricco Dorr was found guilty of one count of
misdemeanor domestic battery and sentenced to 210 days in Cook County Jail. On appeal,
defendant argues that the complaining witness’s testimony at trial was so unsatisfactory that no
reasonable person could accept it as credible, and therefore he was not proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. We affirm. No. 1-19-2592
¶3 Defendant was charged with one count of misdemeanor domestic battery predicated on
making intentional physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature by slapping his ex-
girlfriend, Emily Garcia, on her face (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2018)), on September 5,
2019.
¶4 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to admit propensity evidence of domestic
violence incidents involving defendant and Garcia. The court denied the State’s motion as to a
2016 incident but allowed evidence of two incidents that occurred in 2019.
¶5 At trial, Garcia testified that she and defendant had dated from 2015 until June 22, 2019.
Around 6 p.m. on September 4, 2019, defendant came to Garcia’s apartment while she was home
alone. Garcia had an “understanding” with defendant that he needed to remove his belongings
from the home. They spoke for some time and eventually engaged in sexual activity. While sitting
on the bed around 3:30 a.m., immediately after the sexual activity occurred, defendant slapped
Garcia on the left side of her face with his right hand. Garcia dressed, left the room, and called the
police. Defendant grabbed the phone from her and hung up. Ten to fifteen minutes later, the police
arrived, spoke with Garcia and defendant, and arrested defendant. Garcia had no visible injuries,
and the police suggested that it was not necessary to have a technician come out.
¶6 Garcia further testified that on June 30, 2019, she was pregnant with defendant’s child, but
lived separately from him. She was at home alone and defendant “barged in” and punched her left
cheek. At the time, Garcia was considering an order of protection against defendant, and he was
not to be around her. Garcia called the police, went to the hospital, and filed a police report.
Defendant was arrested.
-2- No. 1-19-2592
¶7 Garcia also testified that on January 17, 2019, she and defendant were at home watching
TV. Garcia was uncertain whether defendant spoke to her or whether she was experiencing
“psychotic episodes,” but recalled that defendant stated that she “was the one threatening him.”
The situation became physical and defendant rolled on top of Garcia, grabbed a rag, and stuffed it
in her mouth. Then, he shoved her head and she scratched him. Defendant barricaded her in the
room for three days and took her phone, so she could not call the police. She eventually left the
house with defendant, and when they returned, she called the police. Defendant was arrested, and
the police documented Garcia’s injuries. The State published photos of Garcia’s face with
scratches from the incident and entered the photos into evidence.
¶8 On cross-examination, Garcia testified that she had psychotic episodes in the past, but due
to a miscarriage, she was not taking medication for her mental health on September 5, 2019, or at
the time of trial. Garcia clarified that intercourse had not occurred, but that she and defendant had
engaged in some form of sexual activity and defendant slapped her about 10 minutes after, while
they were sitting on the bed and not facing one another. Defendant sat on her left, and no words
were exchanged between the sexual activity and the slap. When the police arrived, they offered to
call a technician and an ambulance, but there were no visible marks on her face, and they suggested
that medical services were not necessary. Garcia testified that she did not specifically refuse
medical treatment.
¶9 Chicago police officer Jamie Diaz testified that he and his partner arrived at Garcia’s
apartment a few minutes after receiving the call about a domestic disturbance on September 5,
2019. Diaz spoke to Garcia, who was upset, and his partner spoke with defendant. Defendant was
-3- No. 1-19-2592
agitated and aggressive, and he screamed obscenities following his arrest and during his transport
to the station.
¶ 10 On cross-examination, Diaz confirmed that the officers’ report did not record that
defendant was agitated and aggressive. Diaz did not see visible injuries on Garcia. On redirect
examination, Diaz stated that he called an evidence technician in order to “make notification that
[Garcia] refused” services.
¶ 11 The State entered certified copies of defendant’s convictions that resulted from the
incidents in January and June 2019 and rested.
¶ 12 Defendant moved for a directed finding, arguing that the State failed to meet its burden due
to the discrepancies in Garcia’s testimony, specifically regarding when the slap occurred and
whether she had been offered medical help. Additionally, the defense argued that Garcia’s
description of her and defendant’s positions during the slap appeared incompatible with her
account of what happened. The trial court denied the motion.
¶ 13 After closing arguments, the trial court found defendant guilty of domestic battery. It stated
that it found Garcia credible, citing her frankness and her ability to describe her and defendant’s
positions when he slapped her. The court noted that Garcia provided two different time frames for
when the slap occurred, but that Diaz, who observed defendant and Garcia after the event,
corroborated Garcia’s account regarding “the timing and the nature of the incident.” The court
added that it “didn’t really find [the propensity evidence] relevant.”
¶ 14 Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 280 days in Cook County Jail.
Defendant then filed two motions: one for reconsideration of the guilty finding or, in the
-4- No. 1-19-2592
alternative, for a new trial, and another to reconsider his sentence. The court denied the former
motion but granted the latter and reduced defendant’s sentence to 210 days.
¶ 15 On appeal, defendant argues that Garcia’s testimony was insufficient to prove that he
committed domestic battery. According to defendant, Garcia’s descriptions of when the slap
occurred, and her and defendant’s positions at the time of the slap, are contradictory. Further,
because Garcia has a history of psychotic episodes where she misunderstands a situation, and
because she was not taking medication for this condition, her testimony was not credible.
¶ 16 The State maintains that it met its burden and that Garcia’s testimony, as corroborated by
Diaz, was sufficient to find defendant guilty of domestic battery.
¶ 17 In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court examines
“ ‘whether, after reviewing 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 omitted.) People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30, 43 (2009) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). This court will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the State. Id. The
trier of fact is responsible for weighing the evidence and credibility of witnesses and resolving any
inconsistencies in testimony, and the reviewing court will not substitute its judgment on these
issues. People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 224-25 (2009). A criminal conviction will not be
overturned “unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory that it raises a
reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt.” People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 209 (2004).
¶ 18 Domestic battery occurs when a person knowingly and without legal justification makes
physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with any family or household member. 720
ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2018). Family or household members include “persons who have or
-5- No. 1-19-2592
have had a dating or engagement relationship.” 720 ILCS 5/12-0.1 (West 2018). Defendant only
challenges Garcia’s credibility regarding whether he struck her.
¶ 19 Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that on the evening of
September 4, 2019, into the early hours of September 5, 2019, defendant visited Garcia, his ex-
girlfriend, and after some time they engaged in sexual activity. Garcia testified that, afterwards,
unprovoked, defendant slapped her. Garcia left the room and called 911, and within 10 to 15
minutes, officers arrived. The officers questioned defendant and Garcia, and then arrested
defendant. The officers observed that Garcia was upset, and that defendant was aggressive and
agitated while he was arrested and transported to the station. Taking this testimony as true, the trier
of fact could find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Gray, 2017
IL 120958, ¶ 36 (the positive testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient to convict); People
v. Wrencher, 2011 IL App (4th) 080619, ¶ 55 (whether conduct is insulting or provoking may be
inferred from the victim's contemporaneous reaction to the contact).
¶ 20 Although Garcia testified on cross-examination that the slap occurred 10 minutes after the
sexual activity, her initial testimony had been that it occurred immediately after. However, we will
not reverse a conviction simply because the evidence is contradictory or defendant claims a witness
was not credible. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 36. The trier of fact is responsible for weighing the
evidence and credibility of witnesses and resolving any inconsistencies in testimony. Siguenza-
Brito, 235 Ill. 2d at 224-25. The trial court found Garcia credible and noted her frank and
unembellished testimony and the specificity in which she described the events, including the
positions she and defendant occupied when he slapped her. Garcia also discussed her history of
mental health issues, and stated she was not on medication during the incident or trial. No
-6- No. 1-19-2592
testimony or other evidence showed that Garcia’s testimony was less credible because of her
condition. The trial court noted that she was consistent, unambiguous, and able to describe the
circumstances leading to the slap. Furthermore, the trial court acknowledged inconsistencies in her
account, but determined that the testimony was credible overall based on its observations of the
witness during her testimony. See People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 283 (2004) (“it is for
the fact finder to judge how flaws in part of the testimony affect the credibility of the whole”).
Additionally, the trial court found that Diaz’s testimony corroborated Garcia’s testimony regarding
the timing and nature of the event.
¶ 21 It is the responsibility of the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses, assign
weight to the evidence, and resolve any inconsistencies in testimony. Id. Based on the record,
nothing indicates that Garcia’s testimony was so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that
it raised a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. As such, this court finds no reason to disturb the
judgment of the trial court.
¶ 22 For these reasons we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 23 Affirmed.
-7-