Background
Josue Reyes was charged with four counts of misdemeanor domestic battery arising from two separate incidents involving his wife, Joanna Witte, in Du Page County, Illinois. The charges alleged both physical contact causing bodily harm and contact of an insulting or provoking nature under 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) and (2). The case proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Christine T. Cody after Reyes waived his right to a jury trial.
The State’s primary witness was neighbor Salvatore Degrazio, who testified that on the evening of April 5, 2024, he saw a man — whom he identified as Reyes — on top of Witte in the driveway, flailing his arms and striking her around the midsection, then grabbing her by the hair and dragging her into the garage. Sergeant Danne Pope also testified that when officers responded to a separate April 24, 2024 domestic call, Witte had a bruised left eye and blood on her hand. Witte herself testified for the defense, denying that Reyes hit her and claiming she had merely tripped and fallen. She also admitted she had told the State’s Attorney’s office she would not appear in court, yet showed up anyway.
The trial court found Reyes guilty on two counts — striking her about the body and dragging her across the driveway — both on the insulting or provoking contact theory. It acquitted him on the bodily harm counts for lack of photographic evidence of blood. The court sentenced Reyes to one year of conditional discharge. He appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the conviction on both grounds of appeal. On prosecutorial misconduct, the court found no error — plain or otherwise — in the prosecutor’s pretrial statement about service of process. A full reading of the prosecutor’s remarks made clear he was reporting only an attempt to serve Witte, and that he relayed Witte’s own statement that she believed she had been served; the prosecutor did not affirmatively represent to the court that service had been accomplished. The court also found no error in the prosecutor’s closing argument characterization of Witte as “uncooperative” and a “liar,” reasoning that those characterizations were supported by the evidence — specifically, Witte’s own admission that she told the State she would not appear in court, then appeared anyway on the defendant’s behalf.
On sufficiency of the evidence, the court applied the standard from People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (1985) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)), asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The court held that Degrazio’s eyewitness testimony — clear, consistent, and corroborated by Witte’s appearance after the incident — provided an ample basis for the conviction. The trial court’s credibility determination favoring Degrazio over Witte was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court further noted that under People v. Davidson, 2023 IL 127538, the “insulting or provoking” element is an objective inquiry into the nature of the contact, not the victim’s subjective reaction, so Witte’s testimony that she did not feel insulted did not defeat the charge.
Key Takeaways
- A prosecutor does not misrepresent facts to the court by accurately relaying the substance of a conversation with a witness, even if that witness’s own characterization of events (e.g., claiming she knew she was served) is disputed.
- Calling a witness a “liar” during closing argument is permissible under Illinois law when the record contains evidentiary support — here, the witness’s own admission that she told the State she would not appear, then appeared in court for the defense.
- The “insulting or provoking nature” element of Illinois domestic battery is an objective standard; a victim’s testimony that she did not personally feel insulted or provoked is not dispositive.
- The credible testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction in Illinois, and appellate courts give great deference to trial court credibility determinations.
- This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances specified by Rule 23(e)(1).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the broad latitude Illinois courts afford prosecutors during closing argument when their characterizations of witness credibility are grounded in the trial record. Defense attorneys should be aware that failing to object to prosecutorial comments at trial imposes the demanding plain error standard on appeal — a burden the defendant here could not meet given that the challenged remarks were both accurate and supported by evidence the witness herself provided.
The case also reinforces that domestic battery victims who recant or minimize abuse at trial do not necessarily doom the prosecution. An objective eyewitness and corroborating physical evidence can supply the proof the State needs, and the trial court’s assessment of a recanting victim’s credibility will receive substantial deference on review.