People v. Fansler

2026 IL App (5th) 5240768-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 5-52-40768
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 5240768-U NOTICE Decision filed 01/02/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-0768 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the

Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Piatt County. ) v. ) No. 22-CF-13 ) JACKIE E. FANSLER, ) Honorable ) Gary A. Webber, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE McHANEY delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Cates and Justice Barberis concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Where 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 of intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

¶2 On March 28, 2022, the defendant, Jackie E. Fansler, was charged by information with one

count of violation of an order of protection with a prior violation (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(a), (d) (West

2020)), one count of stalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a-3)(2) (West 2020)), and one count of

intimidation (720 ILCS 5/12-6(a)(1) (West 2020)). The charged offenses were alleged to occur

between December 31, 2021, and March 11, 2022. On January 9, 2024, a jury trial commenced on

all three counts. After testimony, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on all counts; the

court granted the directed verdict on count I (violation of an order of protection) and denied the

motion on counts II and III. The jury found the defendant not guilty of stalking and guilty of

1 intimidation. The court sentenced him to five years in the Illinois Department of Corrections

(IDOC) followed by six months mandatory supervised release (MSR). This appeal followed.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 We recite only those facts, based upon jury trial testimony, which are necessary to our

disposition. The defendant and Mary D. (Mary) were in a dating relationship, ending around

September 2021. Seth Downs, Mary’s son, testified that he lived with Mary and his grandmother

during the time of the alleged offenses. Seth had known the defendant for approximately 30 years

and had seen him drive several vehicles, including both a white Camaro and gold Corvette. Seth

testified that on February 6, 2022, he saw the defendant driving a white Corvette [sic]. Sometime

after February 20, 2022, Seth set up four cameras around the property, and on February 27, 2022,

he viewed footage of a gold Corvette driving by his house. On March 1, 2022, Seth stated he woke

up in the middle of the night, looked out the window, and saw a car with the headlights off driving

by his house. When he left for work that morning, he noticed the distinct odor of paint thinner and

“a clear plastic bag laying on the ground. He said that it looked like there was something that had

been spilled all over [the] hood of [his] work truck,” the truck’s paint was changing colors and

bubbling, and there was a “white soapy film on [his] windshield.” A video was captured of a white

Camaro driving past Mary’s house, with what looked like something splashing off the hood of

Seth’s truck as the Camaro passed. On March 9, 2022, Seth and Mary were driving behind a white

Camaro that appeared to be going towards their residence. After the Camaro drove past, Seth and

officers reviewed camera footage and confirmed that the defendant was the driver of the white

Camaro. All pictures and videos were admitted into evidence and published to the jury.

¶5 Eric Downs testified that he was Mary’s son and had known the defendant since 2015. Eric

knew that the defendant had “an early ‘90’s white Camaro” and a “ ‘90’s gold [convertible]

2 Corvette.” Eric also had set up cameras at Mary’s residence sometime after February 20, 2022. He

noted that on February 27, 2022, a gold Corvette drove past Mary’s house at about noon; on

February 28, 2022, a white Camaro drove past her house; on March 8, another suspicious vehicle

was captured on video going past Mary’s house. This footage was admitted into evidence and

published to the jury.

¶6 Mary testified that she and the defendant worked together for Day Trucking and were in a

dating relationship, which she ended in September 2021. The defendant knew where she lived and

that she drove Day Trucking’s only blue work truck, which the defendant later identified as the

truck he trained Mary to drive. Mary said that the defendant did not handle the breakup well, and

in October 2021 he began “harassing” her. The defendant lived across the street from a grain

elevator that Mary regularly drove to for her job duties. Mary testified that on October 17, 2021,

someone dumped her clean laundry into her yard and rummaged through it, and she noticed that

several pairs of her underwear were missing, including a pair of orange checkered underwear. Piatt

County deputy sheriff Stewart Williams later testified that on November 5, 2021, law enforcement

was dispatched to the defendant’s home for reasons unstated. During a search of his residence,

officers found a pair of orange checkered underwear in the defendant’s nightstand. This item was

photographed but never seized.

¶7 In November 2021 Mary obtained an order of protection against the defendant in Piatt

County case No. 21-OP-116. The trial court admitted the order into evidence, which had been

redacted after a prior hearing on the defendant’s motion in limine. The order directed the defendant

not to harass, physically abuse, or stalk Mary and not to interfere with her personal liberty. The

order also directed the defendant to stay at least 500 feet from Mary at all times, to avoid

communication with her, and prohibited him from being present at Day Trucking. At the time this

3 order was issued, the defendant was no longer working at Day Trucking. The defendant was served

with the order of protection on November 24, 2021, and when served, officers told the defendant

that he needed to stay away from Mary’s house. The order of protection was valid until November

24, 2023. Regarding the order of protection, the State asked Mary, “What were you afraid the

defendant would do to you?” She replied, “At one point, because he was so angry, I was afraid of

being hurt, beat up, raped, or harassed.”

¶8 On December 31, 2021, when working at the grain elevator across from the defendant’s

residence, Mary noticed the defendant “taking videos or pictures” of her. On January 11, 2022, at

the same grain elevator, she saw the defendant “standing out on the porch with his phone taking

pictures or videos” again. Mary also testified that the defendant had followed her for some distance

after she left the grain elevator in her blue work truck. The defendant was driving his gold Corvette,

which had the distinctive louvered headlight that stayed up even when the headlights were off.

¶9 On January 28, 2022, Mary was driving her work truck and noticed the defendant’s vehicle;

later, on her way to another stop, she saw the defendant parked in that same vehicle. When she

drove past him, he followed her for approximately 20 miles. After this incident, Mary began to

keep a journal to document these events.

¶ 10 Mary testified that on January 31, 2022, while in her work truck on the highway, she

noticed the defendant’s Corvette, with its one headlight up. She saw the Corvette weaving behind

her, in and out of her blind spot and took a picture. Attempting to get the Corvette to back up,

Mary tapped her break. In response, the Corvette passed her, and she confirmed the defendant was

the driver. The defendant then got in front of her vehicle and slowed down and accelerated

interchangeably. Mary again took a picture of the defendant’s vehicle.

4 ¶ 11 On February 6, 2022, Mary and Seth were in a vehicle when she saw the defendant’s white

Camaro driving near her house, and she took a picture. On February 8, 2022, Mary testified that

she saw the defendant’s white Camaro on the roadway as she pulled into a fuel lot. After fueling

the grain truck, 20 minutes later, she saw the Camaro drive past her again. On February 10, 2022,

she drove her work truck past an auto body shop, where she noticed the defendant’s white Camaro

hidden among a lot full of vehicles. He pulled out and followed her. Later that day, the defendant

again followed her in the white Camaro. Mary testified that on February 11, 2022, she was again

driving her work truck when she saw defendant driving his white Camaro, approaching an

intersection. He then followed her for approximately eight miles, turning the opposite direction of

her a block away from her house.

¶ 12 On the morning of February 13, 2022, as she was walking outside toward her vehicle, Mary

saw a pair of underwear on her windshield, which she recognized as the orange checkered pair

missing from her laundry that was dumped into her yard on October 17, 2021. She took a picture

of the underwear. She photographed the underwear on the windshield.

¶ 13 Mary testified that on February 15, 2022, she again noticed the defendant following her in

his white Camaro. She double-backed to test whether he was following her, and again saw the

defendant drive up behind her vehicle. The next morning, February 16, 2022, when Mary went to

get in her vehicle, she saw yellow paint had been thrown all over the hood, some splattering onto

Seth’s truck. Mary testified that a little after 5 a.m. the next morning, February 17, 2022, as she

walked out of her house, the white Camaro drove past. Although she did not see the defendant

driving then, she saw the defendant driving his Camaro later that day and took a picture. Mary saw

the Camaro circle a nearby park and then drive past her house on February 20, 2022. All of the

pictures taken by Mary were admitted into evidence and published to the jury.

5 ¶ 14 After Mary testified to the events between December 31, 2021, and March 8, 2022, the

following colloquy occurred between the prosecutor and Mary:

“Q: [Mary], going through the dates that you have been talking about today, and

what you’ve been testifying about, is it correct that, at the time of these events you have

been testifying about, you were a material witness in a pending criminal case in Piatt

County, Illinois?

A: Correct.

Q: These events that you have talked about experiencing, substances on cars at your

home, seeing a white Camaro, seeing a white Camaro when you were in your work truck,

seeing the defendant drive by, did you believe these events were trying to make you do or

not do something?

A: I thought they were trying to stop me from testifying in the case.”

¶ 15 Deputy Sheriff Mendez testified that he was on duty March 11, 2022, when he was

informed about cars on camera near Mary’s house. While driving to Mary’s house, Mendez saw

defendant’s white Camaro, and he made contact with the defendant. The defendant said he was

coming back from buying cigarettes, gas, and a mop in a nearby town, Atwood. These items were

located in the defendant’s car. Mendez then made contact with Mary at her house and reviewed

the footage from that day. At 4:04 p.m. that afternoon, the defendant’s white Camaro is captured

on video. Mendez left Mary’s house and went to speak with the defendant. Mendez asked the

defendant what streets he took coming from Atwood, and the defendant claimed to have driven

down Don Ryan, the main road in Hammond. The defendant never mentioned driving down I

Street, the road Mary lives on. Mendez arrested the defendant for a violation of an order of

protection.

6 ¶ 16 Mendez testified that he then interviewed the defendant. The defendant said that he allowed

someone named “Amanda” to borrow his car that afternoon and that he often allowed people to

borrow his cars. He refused to give specific information about these people, stating that it was

“impertinent.” He said that on that day, March 11, 2022, he had ridden with his cousin, Duanna

Green, to a food pantry, and when he returned, his friend had returned his white Camaro. The

defendant said that he then drove to the home of Dan and Betty Cole and was there until 4:30 or 5

p.m. When he left, he went to Casey’s and Dollar General and bought gas, cigarettes, and a mop.

Mendez informed the defendant that Mary’s residence had cameras installed, and the defendant

said he had not driven past her home since the order of protection was served on him. He could

not say for certain if his vehicles had been by Mary’s residence, since he lent them out often.

Mendez showed the defendant a picture of a male wearing glasses, smoking a cigarette, driving a

white Camaro in front of Mary’s residence on March 1, 2022, at 3:15 a.m. The defendant said that

was not him, that cigarette smokers with glasses drove his car, but also denied knowing who the

driver was. The defendant told Mendez to prove the Camaro was his and insisted that he could not

be the driver, because he went to bed early that night.

¶ 17 Mendez then showed the defendant a picture of the same Camaro in front of Mary’s

residence at 4:04 p.m. that day. The defendant conceded that the car looked like his but said that

he was not driving it. The defendant could not say how long his trip to the Cole’s residence took

and did not answer when asked if it was reasonable to believe that he was in possession of the

Camaro at 4:04 p.m. that day. Mendez testified that based on the time stamp of the picture, it did

not make sense that someone other than the defendant would have been in possession of the

Camaro at that time.

7 ¶ 18 Mendez testified that based on his interview of the defendant, he then spoke with the

defendant’s cousin Duanna Green. Green told Mendez she last saw the defendant on March 11 at

3 p.m. Mendez then checked the Dollar General security footage from 3 p.m. through 4:39 p.m.,

the time Mendez made contact with the defendant on the roadway. Mendez testified that he did

not see anyone resembling the defendant on that security footage.

¶ 19 The State rested, and the defendant moved for a directed verdict on all three counts.

Regarding the violation of an order of protection, count III, the defense conceded that everyone

involved had believed the order of protection extended to Mary’s residence. The defense argued

that although the charging instrument had alleged the defendant came within 500 feet of Mary’s

residence, the protective order itself did not list Mary’s home address as a prohibited location. The

trial court granted the motion for the directed verdict on count III but denied the motion on count

I, stalking and count II, intimidation.

¶ 20 The defendant next testified. He denied taking any pictures or videos of Mary, claiming he

steps outside to use his phone because he gets better service on his porch. He admitted driving in

the area of Mary’s worksite between January and March 2022 but he said he never saw Mary there.

He denied pouring any substance on Mary’s car or Seth’s truck. He testified that he was not the

person in the picture driving the Camaro from March 1, 2022.

¶ 21 The defendant admitted that he saw Mary driving her work truck while in his Corvette one

day but claimed he only recognized the truck once he was alongside it. He admitted the orange-

checkered underwear photographed by deputy Williams was Mary’s but said she left them behind

when she spent the night when they were dating. He denied placing the underwear on Mary’s

windshield. He testified that his son, J.R., his son’s girlfriend, his friend T.J., T.J.’s girlfriend

Brandy, his friend Dan Cole, and Dan’s daughter Susan all drove his white Camaro. He said he

8 drove around the area of Mary’s house often, visiting a pub, a café, a laundromat, a fish fry, and

friends’ homes, claiming never to keep surveillance on Mary. He said most of the time he was at

those locations, Mary was at work. He denied ever trying to intimidate Mary.

¶ 22 After closing arguments, the jury began deliberations. The jury sent out a question: “Was

this the criminal trial that he did not want her to testify in?” During discussion outside the presence

of the jury, the State noted that Mary was asked about “a pending criminal case” without

identifying the charge in order to avoid prejudice to the defendant. The court and the parties agreed

to tell jury that it had “received all the evidence,” and the court “could not answer the question.”

The jury then asked to see two videos, which the court allowed. The first video depicted the “fluid

being thrown on [the] car.” The second video was during the defendant’s police interview when

Mendez showed the defendant the photo of the Camaro driving past Mary’s residence on March

11, 2022, at 4:04 p.m. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the intimidation charge and a not guilty

verdict on the stalking charge.

¶ 23 The defendant filed a posttrial motion, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict

him of intimidation. The court commented that the jury could have inferred the defendant’s

criminal intent from his actions, and that the jury apparently found Mary credible. The court further

noted that the jury apparently had not found the defendant’s denials to be credible and neither had

the court. The court stated that there was a picture that, “although blurry, certainly looks like the

defendant driving his vehicle.” The court denied the defendant’s posttrial motion. The defendant

was sentenced to five years in IDOC, followed by six months’ MSR. The defendant timely

appealed.

9 ¶ 24 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 25 The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was guilty of

intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt and asks this Court to reverse his conviction. In a challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court determines 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. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

319 (1979); People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). “It is within the province of the jury[,

not an appellate court,] to assess the credibility of witnesses, weigh evidence presented, resolve

conflicts in evidence, and draw reasonable inferences therefrom, and its determination is entitled

great deference.” People v. Douglas, 2014 IL App (5th) 120155, ¶ 30.

¶ 26 Illinois courts apply the Jackson v. Virginia standard regardless of whether the evidence is

direct or circumstantial, and circumstantial evidence meeting this standard is sufficient to sustain

a conviction. People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009). This standard “gives full play to the

responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence,

and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Id. A jury need not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to each link in the chain of

circumstances; it is sufficient if all the evidence, taken together, satisfies the jury beyond a

reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Id. In weighing the evidence, a jury is not required to

disregard inferences flowing normally from the evidence before it, or to search out all possible

explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to the status of reasonable doubt. Id. A

reviewing court only sets aside a conviction if the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or

unsatisfactory that it justifies a reasonable doubt of guilt. Id.

10 ¶ 27 Consistent with the statute, the jury was instructed that a person commits intimidation when

he, with the intent to cause another to perform any act, communicates to the other person directly

or indirectly, by any means, a threat to, without lawful authority, inflict physical harm on the

person threatened or property. Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 11.41 (approved

July 18, 2014). Additionally, the jury was instructed on circumstantial evidence: “Circumstantial

evidence is the proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference of other

facts which tend to show the guilt or innocence of [(the) (a)] defendant. Circumstantial evidence

should be considered by you together with all the other evidence in the case in arriving at your

verdict.” Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.02 (approved July 18, 2014).

¶ 28 The jury heard testimony from Mary’s two sons, Seth and Eric Downs, two police officers,

Mary, and the defendant himself. They received 29 exhibits, including photographic and video

evidence of vehicles matching the description of the defendant’s vehicles; some of these photos

showed the face of the driver. Seth and Eric installed security cameras around their mother’s

property and testified to seeing pictures of the defendant’s vehicle, with its distinct broken

“louvered headlight” at all hours of the day. Mary testified that she began taking photos when

encountering the defendant driving on her work route and described in detail each time she saw

the defendant following her between December 31, 2021, and March 11, 2022, citing also to a

journal she began after January 28, 2022. Mary also said that she saw the defendant on more than

one occasion appear to be taking photos or videos of her while she was working at the grain bin

across the street from his house.

¶ 29 The jury heard testimony that yellow paint was thrown on her vehicle, and that after she

obtained an order of protection, the defendant began “harassing” her, causing her to be fearful of

being “hurt, beat up, raped, or harassed.” The jury also heard evidence that Mary’s orange

11 checkered underwear, which the defendant admitted were in his possession, wound up being

placed on the windshield of Mary’s car. The jury also received an exhibit showing these underwear

placed on the windshield of Mary’s car, with no other explanation of how the underwear got there.

Mary stated that all of these incidents made her believe that the defendant was “trying to stop [her]

from testifying in the case” where she was a material witness.

¶ 30 The defendant specifically argues there was insufficient evidence to establish that he

“directly or indirectly communicate[d] a threat.” We disagree. The jury heard ample evidence to

support the inference that the defendant’s actions were, at least, an indirect threat to prevent Mary

from testifying in the “pending criminal case.” Mary confirmed that fact during her testimony.

Having reviewed the entire record and having considered the evidence in the light most favorable

to the prosecution, including all reasonable inferences from that evidence, we find that any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt.

See Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d at 281.

¶ 31 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 32 For the above reasons, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

¶ 33 Affirmed.