PEOPLE V. CONLEY, Illinois Appellate Court, 1989 [p. 146]
Author: Helper

Procedure: D was convicted of aggravated battery based on a permanent disability. ? appeals.

Facts: Approximately 200 high school students were at a party where they were drinking beer. One of the students there was Sean O’Connell. At the party, Sean and his friends were accused of making derogatory remarks, and so Sean and his group began to leave the party. While leaving a group of people walked by Sean’s group and another boy came out of that group asking for Marty Carroll, a friend of Sean’s. This was the D. The D asked Marty for one of his beers and Marty refused, so the D attempted to strike Marty with a wine bottle, but Marty ducked and D ended up hitting Sean. Sean suffered a sustained broken upper and lower jaws and four broken bones in  the area between the bridge of his nose and the lower left cheek. Sean lost one tooth and had root canal surgery. Expert testimony stated that Sean had a permanent condition called mucosal mouth, he had permanent numbness in one lip and that the life expectancy of the damaged teeth might be diminished by a third or half.

Issue: Whether the D intentionally or knowingly caused the permanent injuries to Sean?

Holding: Yes

Reasoning:

• First the court addresses “permanent injury.” For the statute to apply to D’s act, the injury cased to Sean, had to be permanent. The court says the injury is permanent b/c his injuries caused that part of his body (mouth) to no longer serve the same purposes as it did before.
• Second, the court looks at the words “intent” and “knowingly” to establish the mens rea of the D.
• • Intent: a person has intent when they accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute, and the objective/purpose of the ? is to result or engage in such conduct.
  • Knowledge: The person who acts knowingly, the actor is aware of the results of his act.
• The statute the court is referring to states that the offender intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm or permanent disability. The court says that the State has the burden of showing the intent of this actor to hurt Sean.
• The court finds that intent to cause permanent injury can be inferred by surrounding circumstances, offender’s words, the weapon used, and the force of the blow. The court says that the D’s actions displayed his intent, whether or not it was directed at Sean. Although Conley denies intent, he knew what he was doing; his lack of warning and the force of the blow alone can show that he had manifested some intent to hurt another person, likely causing permanent injury.

Decision: There is evidence sufficient to support a finding of intent to cause permanent disability beyond a reasonable doubt.