People v. Woodruff , 2023 IL App (3d) 220061-U ( 2023 )

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).
2023 IL App (3d) 220061-UOrder filed August 16, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
) Kankakee County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-22-0061
v. ) Circuit No. 21-CM-472
)
KYLE R. WOODRUFF, ) Honorable
) William S. Dickenson,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE PETERSON delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices McDade and Davenport concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The State proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating a stalking
no contact order.
¶2 Defendant, Kyle R. Woodruff, appeals his conviction for unlawful violation of a stalking
no contact order, arguing that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We
affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was charged by information with unlawful violation of a stalking no contact
order (720 ILCS 5/12-3.9 (West 2020)) for an offense that occurred on August 7, 2021. The case
proceeded to a jury trial on January 31, 2022. Calvin Zirkle testified that he was a deputy with the
Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office. On June 20, 2021, Zirkle served defendant with a copy of a
stalking no contact order. Zirkle explained the order to defendant, telling him that the order was
issued to Celeste Boucher on May 24, 2021, and would be in effect until November 24, 2021.
Zirkle told defendant Boucher’s address and stated that defendant was required to stay at least 300
feet away from Boucher and her residence. He then gave defendant a copy of the order, which was
entered into evidence.
¶5 Kenneth Gresham testified that he was a police officer with the Village of Bradley Police
Department. On the afternoon of August 7, 2021, he was on patrol in the vicinity of Boucher’s
residence. Gresham was familiar with defendant and knew he was not supposed to be within 300
feet of Boucher’s residence. Gresham saw defendant’s vehicle parked in the alleyway two houses
down from Boucher’s residence. Gresham ran defendant’s information through his computer
system to confirm that the stalking no contact order was still in effect, which it was. Gresham saw
defendant standing by a shed, approached him, and told him that he had a stalking no contact order
and could not be within 300 feet of Boucher’s residence. Defendant stated that he rented the shed
from the owner of the house, Pamela Anderson. Defendant further provided that he was aware of
the order, but thought he was outside of the 300 feet. Gresham subsequently went on Google Earth
and determined that the distance from Anderson’s property line to Boucher’s property line was
approximately 100 feet. Katherine Novak, a detective with the Village of Bradley Police
2
Department, used a roll-a-tape measuring system to measure the distance from the shed to
Boucher’s house. The distance measured 106 feet, 8 inches.
¶6 During Anderson’s testimony, she confirmed that her house was two houses down from
Boucher’s residence. She knew defendant and permitted him to use her shed to store his tools that
he used for his job in construction. At the close of the State’s evidence, defendant moved for a
directed verdict, arguing in part that the State failed to prove that defendant knowingly violated the
order. The court denied the motion. Defendant did not put on any evidence.
¶7 After deliberations, the jury found defendant guilty. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was
denied. The court sentenced defendant to 300 days in jail, with credit for time served.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove that he knowingly violated the
stalking no contact order. “When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it
is not the function of this court to retry the defendant.” People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261
(1985). Rather, “ ‘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.) Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). We give great deference to the trier of fact (see, e.g., People v. Saxon,
374 Ill. App. 3d 409, 416-17 (2007)) and must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in
favor of the prosecution (People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004)). “A criminal
conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates
a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261.
¶ 10 For defendant to be convicted of unlawfully violating a stalking no contact order, the State
had to prove (1) defendant knowingly committed an act which was prohibited by the court in the
3
stalking no contact order, and (2) the violation occurred after defendant had been served notice of
the contents of the order. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.9(a) (West 2020). Defendant does not dispute that the
State proved the second element. Instead, defendant solely argues that the State did not prove that
he knowingly violated the order, noting that the evidence provided that defendant told Gresham
that he thought he was more than 300 feet from Boucher’s residence.
¶ 11 Section 4-5 of the Criminal Code of 2012 provides,
“A person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge of:
(a) The nature or attendant circumstances of his or her conduct, described
by the statute defining the offense, when he or she is consciously aware that his or
her conduct is of that nature or that those circumstances exist. Knowledge of a
material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that the fact exists.
(b) The result of his or her conduct, described by the statute defining the
offense, when he or she is consciously aware that that result is practically certain to
be caused by his conduct.” 720 ILCS 5/4-5 (West 2020).
Knowledge is ordinarily proven through circumstantial evidence (People v. Melton, 282 Ill. App.
3d 408, 417-18 (1996)) and is a question of fact for the jury to decide (People v. Monteleone, 2018
IL App (2d) 170150, ¶ 26). “[A] defendant’s knowledge can be inferred from the surrounding facts
and circumstances.” Id. Moreover, “knowledge may be established with reference to what a
reasonable person would know under the circumstances.” People v. Purta, 2023 IL App (2d)
220169, ¶ 21.
¶ 12 Here, we cannot say the evidence was so improbable or unsatisfactory that it created a
reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. The evidence established that defendant was required to stay
300 feet from Boucher’s residence. Even so, he rented a shed two houses down from Boucher’s
4
residence. The shed was only approximately 107 feet away from Boucher’s house. Considering
that the shed was well within the 300 feet, a reasonable person would know that he or she was
violating the stalking no contact order. See id. Adding to this that defendant had specialized
knowledge in the construction business, the jury could have inferred that he knew he was within
300 feet of Boucher’s house. Moreover, the jury could have determined that defendant was being
untruthful when he told Gresham he thought he was outside of the 300 feet. Taking the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 13 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 14 The judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.
¶ 15 Affirmed.
5