People v. Siddiqui ( 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) 220489-UOrder filed December 5, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 18th Judicial Circuit,
) Du Page County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-22-0489
v. ) Circuit No. 21-DV-911
)
IMRAN SIDDIQUI, ) Honorable
) George A. Ford,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE ALBRECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices McDade and Peterson concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: (1) The evidence was sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. (2) The court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion
in limine regarding the victim’s medical records.
¶2 Defendant, Imran Siddiqui, appeals his convictions for domestic battery arguing (1) the
State presented insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) the
Du Page County circuit court abused its discretion when it denied defendant access to the victim’s
medical records. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The State charged defendant by superseding indictment with two counts of domestic
battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1), (2) (West 2020)), alleging that defendant “knowingly and
without legal justification, made physical contact” both of an insulting and provoking nature and
caused bodily harm to Haffa Rasheed “in that said defendant struck *** Rasheed about the head,
causing pain.” The case proceeded to a bench trial.
¶5 Prior to trial, defendant sought to subpoena Rasheed’s medical records, asserting that they
would show Rasheed “received treatment *** for an autoimmune disorder *** as a result of
unexplained bruising throughout her body. She was diagnosed *** with rheumatoid arthritis and
ha[d] been prescribed medication which cause[d] bruising” during the time of the incident. Over
the State’s objection, the court granted defendant’s subpoena request, subject to its in camera
review, and limited the request to records regarding “rosacea and rheumatoid arthritis” from
January 6, 2020, to August 7, 2021. Following its in camera review of the medical records
subpoenaed by defendant, the court “did not find any records that were *** material or relevant to
the Defendant’s case-in-chief,” and denied defendant’s motion. Relevant to this appeal, the records
showed that Rasheed sought treatment in two separate instances unrelated to any aforementioned
diagnosis. No document indicated that Rasheed suffered from any skin condition or disease that
defendant proffers might have caused her injuries on the date of the offense.
¶6 At trial, Rasheed testified that she and defendant were no longer married. On August 7,
2021, Rasheed was at home with defendant and their three children. That morning, Rasheed took
their children downstairs while defendant remained upstairs resting. At some point, their three-
year-old son asked for help to use the bathroom, and Rasheed told him to ask defendant. When he
went upstairs to find defendant, Rasheed fell asleep. Rasheed then heard defendant screaming and
2
cursing at the “top of his lungs” from upstairs. Defendant came downstairs “screaming and yelling”
at Rasheed and asked why she “didn’t go to Orlando and die over there[,]” referring to a canceled
flight. Defendant continued “yelling and screaming and cursing” at Rasheed “for no reason *** in
front of three minors and none of it was making any sense.” When Rasheed asked if they had “an
airplane [in the] driveway[,]” defendant told Rasheed that if she said, “one more word,” he was
going to “break” her head and mouth. Defendant told their daughter, “if you say one more word,
I’m going to break your head, too[.]” Defendant “punched” Rasheed’s face “very quick” with his
left hand in a closed fist. At this time, defendant and Rasheed were “face-to-face.” Defendant used
“a lot of pressure” but “stopped a little bit” so his hand made contact with the right side of
Rasheed’s cheek, which resulted in a “scrape[ ].” Rasheed described the punch as “hurting” and
“burning,” and feeling like she “wanted to cry [and] go away from there.” Eventually, Rasheed
called the police. The State admitted two photographs that Rasheed took of the injuries to her face.
A small red scratch is visible on Rasheed’s right cheek.
¶7 Rasheed described another incident from January 6, 2020, when defendant cycled through
fits of anger, cursing, and insulting Rasheed and then apologizing. At some point, Rasheed woke
defendant and said, “you’re seriously sleeping” after what had occurred earlier and defendant
“blew up,” “hit” Rasheed, and “ripped” her clothes off. Despite Rasheed’s attempts to defend
herself, defendant hit her, which caused bruises and scratches on her face. Rasheed’s photographs
of the resulting injuries showed a bruise on her upper arm and a mark on her face.
¶8 On cross-examination, Rasheed denied (1) having a medical condition that caused bruising
or seeing a doctor “related to some or any kind of bruises appearing” on her skin, (2) having
rosacea or ever being treated for a skin condition, (3) ever having acne on her face, or (4) having
“bumps and bruises” on her face due to a skin disease. Rasheed admitted that she saw a doctor
3
because her “joints were hurting” and agreed that she had rheumatoid arthritis and took medication
to treat it. When asked if she recalled visiting a specific doctor, Rasheed responded, “I don’t
know.” Counsel showed Rasheed several photographs from 2015 and 2016 and asked if the marks
on Rasheed’s face in the photographs were acne. Rasheed responded, “Maybe. I don’t know.”
When asked if the photographs fairly and accurately depicted Rasheed, she responded, “I don’t
know.”
¶9 Rasheed admitted that she did not immediately call 911 after the incident but did eventually
make the call. Counsel asked, “[a]nd you further told the dispatcher that [defendant] tried to hit
[you], but then he did not. He stopped.” Rasheed stated she told the dispatcher defendant “hit” her
and “by the time [defendant] stopped his punch his hand had already made contact with [her] face
and it had ripped [her] skin.” Counsel repeated the question. Rasheed responded, “[h]e did. He
stopped after his hand already made contact with my face.” Rasheed did not recall telling dispatch
that defendant “tried to hit [her] but he did not. He stopped.” Counsel used Rasheed’s 911 call for
impeachment. In the audio recording, Rasheed told the dispatcher, “My husband *** got mad at
me. And he used to hit me, like last time a year ago he got in trouble with [the] police. So he tried
to hit me, but he did not, he stopped, but he still punched me a little on my face.” The court granted
the State’s request to play the entire audio for completion. In the remaining audio, Rasheed stated,
“and my skin got a little scratched.” 1 Defense counsel also asked, “[s]o you didn’t *** actually
sustain a bruise to your face, did you?” Rasheed indicated that she observed the bruise the day
after but did not take photographs because she was “going through a trauma.” Referring to the
battery, counsel asked, “[defendant] used his left hand, correct?” When Rasheed gave an indefinite
1
The State did not indicate at what point they stopped the audio recording, but stated afterward,
“[t]hat would be the only additional portion [it] intends to play.”
4
answer, counsel asked “[a]re you not certain whether [defendant] is right or left handed?” Rasheed
responded, “[defendant’s] practice is to hold me with his right [h]and and hit me with his left.”
When asked again whether Rasheed knew if defendant was right or left-handed, she said, “I don’t
know.”
¶ 10 Officer Justin Blondin testified that on August 7, 2021, he responded to a domestic violence
call. Blondin made contact with Rasheed and observed that she was “visibly upset and crying and
she had a fresh wound on her right cheek.” Blondin described the wound as a scratch where he
observed blood, though “not draining blood.” Later, Blondin interviewed defendant. The State
admitted People’s exhibit No. 3, which contained two video recordings. One video showed
defendant’s interview with police.2
¶ 11 The other video showed defendant on August 8, 2021, at the police station requesting the
officers to stand by while he retrieved his items from the residence. Independent of any questions,
defendant spoke about the events on August 7. Specifically, defendant referred to the scratch on
Rasheed’s face and stated that he now “recalled what happened.” Because he was “half-asleep and
half-awake” and made sure that he did not “hit” Rasheed, defendant believed the scratch “maybe”
resulted from him pointing his finger in Rasheed’s face and Rasheed tried to grab defendant’s hand
and “jerk” it away. Defendant explained that “otherwise if [he] would have hit [Rasheed] it would
have been a slap,” because he “made sure [he] shouldn’t hit her.” Defendant continued that there
was no way he could have “hit her on the left cheek” because she was lying on the couch.
Defendant also stated that he was “not sure” he could have scratched Rasheed because his nails
were short.
2
This video is not included in the record on appeal.
5
¶ 12 On cross-examination, Blondin indicated that defendant voluntarily spoke with officers
following the reported domestic battery. Blondin did not observe any bruises on Rasheed’s face,
arms, or legs, nor did Rasheed report bruises after the incident. Defense counsel admitted a
photograph of defendant’s hands. When asked to describe the length of defendant’s fingernails,
Blondin could not say if they were long or short.
¶ 13 The court found defendant guilty of domestic battery. In doing so, the court commented on
defendant’s story to police and how it corroborated Rasheed’s version, in that defendant admitted
that he argued with Rasheed after his son came upstairs and woke him. The court discussed
defendant’s interview and his statement that he “did not hit” Rasheed in comparison with
defendant’s statement the next day that he “now recall[ed] what had occurred” and “admit[ted]”
that Rasheed “jerked away and that’s how the injury may have occurred.” The court concluded
that Rasheed’s testimony was “credible” and “supported by the physical evidence,” and “Blondin’s
testimony as well as the Defendant’s own statements.” The two counts merged, and the court
sentenced defendant to one year of conditional discharge. Defendant appealed.
¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 15 A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶ 16 On appeal, defendant first argues that the State did not prove him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of domestic battery, where it failed to prove that the described injury was a result
of defendant “punch[ing]” Rasheed’s face. When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence, “ ‘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)). “This standard of review does
6
not allow the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder on questions
involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.” People v. Jackson, 232
Ill. 2d 246, 280-81 (2009). Thus, we afford great deference to the trier of fact, “to determine the
credibility of witnesses, to weigh evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom, and to
resolve any conflicts in the evidence.” People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 228 (2009). We
will not retry a defendant and must allow all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of
the State. People v. Lloyd, 2013 IL 113510, ¶ 42. To prove defendant guilty of domestic battery,
the State had to establish that defendant knowingly, without legal justification, made physical
contact of an insulting and provoking nature with Rasheed, a family member, and that physical
contact resulted in bodily harm. See 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1), (2) (West 2020).
¶ 17 At the outset, we note that, in reaching its decision, the court relied on defendant’s initial
recorded interview that was played in court. However, no video included on appeal shows this
interview. We will construe this omission against defendant. See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d
389, 391-92 (1984) (“[A]n appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record of
the proceedings at trial to support a claim of error, and in the absence of such a record on appeal,
it will be presumed that *** the trial court was in conformity with law ***. Any doubts which may
arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant.”).
¶ 18 Here, Rasheed testified that defendant initially used “a lot of pressure,” but attempted to
stop himself from hitting her. Despite defendant’s attempt to control himself after already
beginning the act, his swing resulted in the “probable consequence” of making contact with
Rasheed’s face, causing a scratch. People v. Hickman, 9 Ill. App. 3d 39, 44 (1973) (“[W]here one
in the commission of a wrongful act commits another wrong not meant by him, or where in the
execution of an intent to do wrong, an unintended act resulting in a wrong ensued as a natural and
7
probable consequence, the one acting with wrongful intent is responsible for the unintended
wrong.”). Rasheed was adamant that defendant made contact with her face and described the
contact as painful and resulting in a “scrape[ ].” Additional evidence corroborated Rasheed’s
testimony, including her 911 call where she told the dispatcher that defendant tried to hit her and
stopped, but “still punched [her] a little on [her] face” causing a scratch, also observed by Blondin
and corroborated by photographs. Moreover, Blondin’s observations that Rasheed was visibly
upset and crying corroborated her testimony that defendant’s conduct was insulting and provoking.
We find that the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant’s punch, even if imperfectly
executed, resulted in both insulting and provoking contact and bodily harm to Rasheed beyond a
reasonable doubt.
¶ 19 Importantly, the court found Rasheed credible and defendant incredible. Specifically, the
court noted that the physical evidence, Blondin’s testimony, and parts of defendant’s story
corroborated and supported Rasheed’s testimony. See People v. Spaulding, 68 Ill. App. 3d 663,
675 (1979) (“the trier of fact is free to believe part of one’s testimony without believing all of it”).
In contrast, the court found defendant’s statements inconsistent, where he first stated that he did
not hit Rasheed and denied any physical contact, but the next day had suddenly “recalled” an
explanation for Rasheed’s injuries. We agree with the court and see no reason to substitute our
judgment for the court’s credibility determinations. See Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d at 280-81.
¶ 20 B. Medical Records
¶ 21 Next, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant
access to the victim’s medical records. Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve his challenge
to the court’s denial of his motion in limine and requests that we review his claim under both
prongs of the plain error analysis. The plain error doctrine permits a reviewing court to remedy a
8
“clear or obvious error” when: (1) “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone
threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the
error,” or (2) “that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and
challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People
v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007). The first step of the plain error analysis is to determine
whether an error occurred. People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19.
¶ 22 A motion in limine permits a party to obtain a pretrial order admitting or excluding
evidence. People v. Gliniewicz, 2018 IL App (2d) 170490, ¶ 32. A motion in limine should be
specific and “set out all relevant facts so that the trial court can properly assess the relevance and
admissibility of the evidence at issue as well as any potential unfair prejudice.” Id. A pretrial ruling
on a motion in limine is always subject to reconsideration at trial because the court rules on it in a
vacuum before hearing the trial evidence that might justify either admission or exclusion of the
proposed evidence. Id. While medical records as the subject of a motion in limine may be
admissible in certain circumstances, this fact “ ‘does not give parties free rein to introduce medical
records as a substitute for expert medical testimony.’ ” People v. Arze, 2016 IL (1st) 131959, ¶ 110
(quoting Troyan v. Reyes, 367 Ill. App. 3d 729, 736 (2006)). “ ‘[M]edical records may be excluded
if they are not relevant.’ ” Id. (quoting Troyan, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 736). “Generally, a trial court’s
ruling on a motion in limine will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Gliniewicz,
2018 IL App (2d) 170490, ¶ 32. “An abuse of discretion exists only where the trial court’s decision
is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable ***.” People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 429 (2010).
¶ 23 Here, the court properly permitted a limited in camera review of Rasheed’s medical records
based on counsel’s proffered “good-faith belief” that the medical records “might provide
impeachment evidence.” People v. Sauls, 2022 IL 127732, ¶ 48. However, defendant failed to
9
establish that, following its in camera review, the court abused its discretion in excluding
Rasheed’s medical records. Specifically, the court is presumed to know and follow the law and,
therefore, is presumed to have known that, following trial evidence, the records subject to the
motion in limine may be justifiably admitted if the relevancy became evident later. People v. Duff,
374 Ill. App. 3d 599, 605 (2007); Gliniewicz, 2018 IL App (2d) 170490, ¶ 32.
¶ 24 Defendant specifically references two pages from the medical records provided on appeal
dated November 21, 2019, and December 11, 2021. Both dates are outside the timeframe that the
court considered, nonetheless, we have reviewed them on appeal. Defendant fails to demonstrate
how anything in the records would have caused an injury described as a “scratch[ ]” on Rasheed’s
face. See Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392. Thus, the medical records presented, even outside the date,
were irrelevant.
¶ 25 Additionally, while the court ruled that the records were irrelevant to defendant’s case, the
court did not limit counsel’s cross-examination of Rasheed, where counsel asked several questions
regarding Rasheed’s diagnoses. Further, the court did not bar counsel from presenting expert
witness testimony to address Rasheed’s alleged ailments that defendant believed would explain
the injury to Rasheed’s face, though counsel chose not to do so. Absent evidence to the contrary,
we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the in camera review and
subsequently determined that the records reviewed in camera were not relevant to defendant’s
case. 3 See Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d at 429. Where no error occurred, there is no plain error. See People
v. Harris, 2020 IL App (3d) 160169, ¶ 39.
3
Defendant contends that the medical records included in the common law records on appeal are
only a portion of the medical records reviewed in camera by the court. Defendant attempts to excuse his
ability to demonstrate the relevancy of the medical records and reasons that he has “no access” to the
remaining records. Because it is defendant’s burden on appeal to supply the record, we construe the
omission of this evidence against defendant. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392.
10
¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 27 The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
¶ 28 Affirmed.
11