Background
Following a bench trial before the Honorable David P. Kliment, Pedro A. Vilchis was convicted of attempted first degree murder, criminal damage to government-supported property, aggravated assault, and aggravated fleeing and eluding. He received nine years’ imprisonment on the attempted-murder conviction and concurrent two-year terms on the other convictions, and was ordered to pay $13,245 in restitution to Kane County. The charges arose from an almost 15-minute chase beginning around 1:30 a.m. on August 12, 2022, during which Vilchis reached 104 mph, committed numerous traffic violations, and repeatedly drove in opposing lanes.
Sergeant Ryan Rojkowski made two unsuccessful precision immobilization technique attempts after receiving authorization to stop the vehicle. Detective Lionel Arredondo ultimately struck Vilchis’s car, ending the chase. Both deputies acknowledged initiating the contacts that damaged their squad cars. The parties stipulated that Christine Davis would testify that Arredondo’s squad car was valued at $13,425 and that its damage was determined to be $9,757.77; those figures were distinct from the restitution order.
After the State rested, the trial court granted Vilchis’s motion for a directed finding of not guilty on count II, attempted murder of Deputy Alfred Vidrio, because the State failed to show specific intent to kill him. It denied the motion concerning count I, involving Detective Patrick Knudtson, and denied it as to counts III through XIV. Vilchis appealed the property-damage convictions, count I, and one aggravated-assault conviction. The appellate court also denied the State’s request under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6) to strike portions of his brief for an allegedly selective and misleading factual statement, finding no omissions requiring that relief.
The Court’s Holding
Justice McLaren delivered the majority opinion, with Justice Hutchinson concurring. Addressing property damage, the court applied de novo review because Vilchis disputed whether uncontested facts satisfied the statutory elements, not witness credibility. It held that the deputies, acting under departmental authorization, caused the squad-car damage by initiating the collisions. The court rejected the State’s reliance on felony-murder proximate-cause decisions and People v. Barr, explaining that those authorities involved statutes specifically authorizing such liability. It likewise rejected section 5-2(a) accountability: the deputies’ authorized conduct was not another person’s criminal act, and the evidence did not show that they lacked the requisite knowledge. The court further found no evidence that Vilchis knew the authorized tactics would be used and held that squad-car damage was not practically certain to result from his flight.
On attempted murder, the majority concluded that the testimony and videos, considered with Vilchis’s conduct throughout the chase, demonstrated an intent to evade police rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of specific intent to kill Knudtson. It emphasized that Vilchis did not follow Knudtson off the road, returned to the eastbound lane, and had an encounter lasting no more than six seconds. Unlike cases involving deliberation, express threats, or sustained pursuit of a particular victim, his conduct did not establish the required intent.
The court affirmed count VIII, aggravated assault against Vidrio. Although stating that a defendant never forfeits the right to challenge evidentiary sufficiency on appeal, it relied on defense counsel’s judicial admission during closing—“I believe the State has proven the assault charges”—and Vilchis’s failure to raise the issue in his new-trial motion or at its hearing. Without finding forfeiture, the court concluded that those circumstances permitted it to find no error.
Key Takeaways
- Counts III and IV were reversed with prejudice, and the associated restitution order was vacated; count I was separately reversed with prejudice, while count VIII was affirmed.
- Footnote 2 supplied an alternative property-damage ruling: no evidence established the value of damage to Rojkowski’s car. His testimony about a previously replaced push bar worth over $1,000 did not establish replacement after these collisions, and People’s exhibit 8 was dark, shadowy, and indistinguishable. Absent the principal reversal, the court would have reduced that Class 3 felony conviction to a Class 4 felony conviction.
- Justice Birkett would have affirmed count I. His partial dissent argued that synchronized dashcam recordings and unrebutted testimony contradicted the majority’s premise about Knudtson’s position and that the majority improperly reweighed the evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes ordinary sufficiency review from de novo review of whether undisputed facts satisfy statutory elements. It also limits attempts to import felony-murder proximate causation or accountability into property-damage liability without a statutory basis.
The attempted-murder analysis treats the entire chase and the brief Knudtson encounter as relevant to specific intent, while the assault ruling is expressly tied to counsel’s concession and the case’s procedural history—not a universal preservation rule.