Background
A jury found Kenneth Tate guilty of attempted first degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault based on oral penetration, and aggravated battery arising from a 2017 attack on J.G. J.G. testified that Tate grabbed her by the neck and hair, threatened that the more she screamed, the more she would die, strangled and punched her, and forced her to perform oral sex. The jury acquitted Tate of a separate sexual-assault count based on vaginal penetration.
Medical witnesses documented neck abrasions and petechiae, facial and foot injuries, and a fractured foot, and testified that J.G.’s injuries were consistent with strangulation and sexual assault. Semen on J.G.’s shirt matched Tate’s DNA profile, while a partial Y-chromosome profile from an oral swab could not exclude Tate or a paternal relative. Tate denied assaulting J.G. and claimed that she had consensually touched him. The circuit court imposed an aggregate 50-year prison sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed all three convictions. It held that a rational jury could find Tate specifically intended to kill J.G. because he repeatedly strangled her with substantial force, prevented her from breathing or speaking, caused her to lose consciousness, punched her, and expressly threatened that she would die. The fact that he stopped before killing her did not defeat the conviction because abandonment is not a defense after the elements of attempted murder are complete.
The court also held that J.G.’s testimony was sufficient to support the aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated battery convictions. Her minor inconsistencies did not make her account unreasonable, and her testimony was corroborated by medical findings, photographs, and DNA evidence. Finally, the prosecutor did not improperly conflate the conclusive shirt DNA evidence with the more limited oral-swab profile during closing argument; the prosecutor separately described their differing statistical significance, and any potential confusion was mitigated by the defense’s response and the trial court’s instructions.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated manual strangulation, coupled with an express death threat and evidence that the victim could not breathe and lost consciousness, supported a finding of specific intent to kill.
- A sexual-assault complainant’s credible testimony can sustain a conviction without corroboration, although medical, photographic, and DNA evidence corroborated the account here.
- The prosecutor accurately distinguished a DNA match from a partial Y-chromosome profile, and the jury’s split verdict did not establish that the remaining convictions were unreliable.
Why It Matters
The Rule 23 order illustrates how Illinois courts assess intent to kill when strangulation, rather than a conventional weapon, is the alleged substantial step toward murder. Because strangulation is a continuous act whose fatal point is uncertain, stopping before death does not necessarily negate an intent to kill formed during the attack.
The decision also reinforces the deference appellate courts give juries on witness credibility and explains that differing strengths of DNA evidence may be discussed in closing argument so long as the prosecutor accurately distinguishes them. The order is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).