Illinois – People v. Teeter

Chicago, Illinois skyline

Click Image to read full document

2018 IL App (3d) 150243
Opinion filed January 31, 2018
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2018
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 21st Judicial Circuit, ) Kankakee County, Illinois. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-15-0243 v. ) Circuit No. 13-CF-291
)
KYLE J. TETTER, )
) Honorable Kathy Bradshaw-Elliott, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justice Lytton concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Wright concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion.

OPINION
1 Defendant, age 21 at the time, began a relationship with S.K. who represented herself to
be 18. A jury found that defendant continued this relationship after learning S.K. was 16 and
convicted him of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(d) (West 2012)). After
his conviction, the trial court sentenced defendant to 180 days in county jail, 4 years’ sex
offender probation, and mandatory lifetime sex offender registration.
2 On appeal, defendant seeks a new trial; he alleges the trial court erred in admitting and
publishing a voicemail recording during defendant’s cross-examination. Defendant also raises,
for the first time on appeal, a constitutional challenge claiming the Illinois Sex Offender
Registration Act (SORA) (730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (West 2012)), Sex Offender Community
Notification Law (Notification Law) (730 ILCS 152/101 et seq. (West 2012)), residence and
presence restrictions within 500 feet of school zones or 100 feet of school bus stops (720 ILCS
5/11-9.3 (West 2012)), residence and presence restrictions within 500 feet of a public park (720
ILCS 5/11-9.4-1 (West 2012)), mandatory annual driver’s license renewal (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(o)
(West 2012)), and prohibiting defendant from petitioning to change his name (735 ILCS 5/21
101 (West 2012)) impose disproportionate punishment as applied to him. We refer to these
statutes collectively as “sex offender statutes” herein.
3 We affirm the trial court’s evidentiary ruling regarding the voicemail recording.
However, we find that defendant’s lifetime subjection to the sex offender statutes constitutes
grossly disproportionate punishment as applied to him. The facts underlying defendant’s
conviction do not suggest that he is a dangerous sexual predator who must be banned from areas
near schools or public parks, or who must be monitored by law enforcement authorities and
presented to the public as a dangerous sexual predator.

Read the full court document here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *