People v. Bascom
Annotate this Case
ÿWPCÐ________ñ1-1-1callfromthedefendant'shusband,LanceÌEpoch.GearyfoundEpochathishomeappearing"heavilysoiled,Ìkindoffullofmud,andwet."EpochhadanabrasiononhischinÌandshowedothersignsofphysicalcontact.ÌEpochtoldGearythathehadarrivedhomeatabout9:30p.m.Ìandthedefendantarrivedsoonafter.Anargumentensued.IntheÌcourseoftheargument,thedefendantretrieveda9-millimeterÌhandgunfromthebedroom.ThedefendantheldtheguntoherheadÌandpulledthetrigger,butthegundidnotfire.ShethenpointedÌthegunatEpochandpulledthetrigger,withthesameresult.ÌEpochtriedtocall9-1-1,butthedefendantdisconnectedtheÌphone.ThedefendantstruckhiminthefaceseveraltimesduringÌtheconfrontation.ÐÔ_ewashers.Ô__vationsoftheÌdefendantwhichwouldhaveprovidedgroundstoarresther.Ðhavebeenresolved,onlyaÌquestionoflawremains.Peoplev.Foskey,136Ill.2d66,76Ì(1990).Consequently,itisimportanttonotethedifferenceÌbetweenarulingrenderedbyapplyinglawtostipulatedorÌundisputedfactsandtheprocessofevaluatingthecredibilityofÌtestimonyandweighingevidence.Frazier,248Ill.App.3dat12.ÌIndeed,whereboththefactsandthecredibilityofthewitnessesÌareuncontrovertedthequestionpresentedbecomesalegalone,Ìsubjecttodenovoreview.Frazier,248Ill.App.3dat12-13.ÌInthiscase,thedefendantcontendsthatseveralfactsareÌdisputedandstatesthatamanifestlyerroneousstandardofreviewÌisrequired.Specifically,thedefendantarguesthatNeary'sÌtestimonyshowsthathedidnotknowwhenhelearnedthatafirearmÌwasinvolvedintheallegedbatteryandthatitcouldhavebeenÌafterhearrestedthedefendant.Further,thedefendantstatesÌthattherecordisnotclearthatOfficerNearyknewabouttheÌallegeddomesticbatterywhenhearrestedthedefendant.ÌAtthehearing,thecourtfoundthatOfficerNearylackedÌprobablecausetoarrestthedefendant.ThetrialcourtbasedthisÌconclusiononthepremisethatNearywasunawareofthespecificÌfactssurroundingthedomesticbatteryandthatNearydidnotÌobservethedefendantdoanythingsuspiciousbeforehearrestedÌher.ThecourtalsonotedthatitbelievedthattherecordshowedÌthatNearyknewofthedomesticbatterybeforehearrestedtheÌdefendant.ÌFirst,wefindthatthedeterminationofwhetherNearyknewÌaboutthefirearmbeforehearrestedthedefendantisnotrelevantÌtotheoutcomeoftheissuebeforethiscourtbecauseitisnotÌnecessaryforanofficertoknowhowacrimehasbeencommittedÌbeforemakingawarrantlessarrest.See725ILCS5/107--2(c)(WestÌ1992).Second,wefindnothingintherecordthatshowsthattheÌtrialcourt'sbelievingNearythatheknewaboutthedomesticÌbatterybeforehearrestedthedefendantwasunreasonable.ÌAccordingly,weonlyneeddetermineif,asamatteroflaw,ÌDetectiveGeary'sandOfficerNeary'stestimonysatisfiesthelegalÌrequirementsforNeary'smakingawarrantlessarrest.SeePeopleÌv.Clark,92Ill.2d96,99(1982)(ifatrialcourt'srulingonaÌmotiontosuppresswasbasedonawitness'testimonythatitÌacceptedascredible,andthereisnogrounduponwhichthetrialÌcourt'scredibilitydeterminationcanberejectedas"clearlyÌunreasonable,"thenareviewingcourtneedonlydetermine,asÔ_malltheinformationcollectivelyreceivedbytheÌofficersevenifthatinformationisnotspecificallyknowntotheÌofficerwhomakesthearrest.Peoplev.Ô_Ill.App.3dat724-25.ÌInÔ_.ÌMcLARENandDOYLE,JJ.,concur.ÌÌ
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
