Batavia man, convicted of home invasion, seeks new trial

ST. CHARLES TOWNSHIP – A Batavia man who was convicted last month of felony home invasion and aggravated battery/strangulation has filed a 31-page handwritten motion asking the judge to grant him a new trial based on errors both the judge and his public defender made.

Christopher J. Turecek, 39, of the 900 block of North Washington Street, Batavia, filed the court papers Aug. 20. His sentencing hearing before Kane County Associate Judge Kathryn Karayannis is scheduled for Sept. 18. Turecek faces a punishment of six to 30 years in prison with no chance of probation.

Turecek’s public defender, Nicholas Feda, also filed court papers Aug. 12 citing 24 errors the court made during the jury trial. Feda’s filing asks Karayannis to either vacate Turecek’s conviction or grant his motion for a new trial.

Feda did not return a voicemail message seeking comment.

Through a spokesman via email, Karayannis would not comment while the case is pending and cited judicial “canons that do not allow any comment on any matter concerning the case outside of the courtroom.”

‘Drug den’

The charges against Turecek stem from a Sept. 3, 2018, incident in the 1300 block of Brandywine Circle in which he was accused of entering a house uninvited and fighting with the occupants, according to a news release at the time.

“While en route, dispatch advised officers that there were five subjects fighting and a male subject was screaming that he was dying,” the release stated at the time.

After Turecek’s conviction, Kane County State’s Attorney Joe McMahon issued a statement that Turecek was lucky to be alive.

“Breaking into someone’s home in the middle of the night is both criminal and stupid,” McMahon said in a prepared statement. “I’m glad the homeowners showed restraint and this situation didn’t escalate further.”

In his filing, Turecek argues that he went to the house to rescue his girlfriend from what he called a “drug den,” but his attorney was not allowed to introduce evidence of that nor impeach witnesses against him at trial.

“A motion was granted in pre-trial motions to exclude all drugs found inside the house, outside of the immediate area where the altercation took place,” Turecek’s filing stated. “The state’s position was left to paint the defendant as a ‘crazed lunatic’ and the accusers as simple, sober, non-drug-dealing ‘victims’ only.”

Turecek’s filing also alleges that Feda failed to investigate the witnesses and prepare for trial.

Turecek also was convicted of criminal damage to property related to a door being kicked in. Turecek’s motion for a new trial stated that the first responding Batavia officer checked his shoes and “noted they did not match the marks left on the door.”

A second assailant was named and identified in a photo lineup by Turecek’s girlfriend, but Feda failed to investigate and subpoena him, Turecek’s filing stated.

Turecek’s filing also alleged that Feda did not effectively impeach his girlfriend’s testimony at trial.

“He never moved to have her statement stricken due to the fact that she was under arrest for a warrant for violation of probation,” Turecek’s filing stated. “The entire stance of the defendant was made clear by his very first utterance to the police, (which) was, ‘I’m just trying to get my girl out of the drug den.’ ”

Feda’s motion also states one of the court’s errors was in granting a prosecution request to bar drug evidence at the Brandywine house from Turecek’s trial.

Prosecutors filed court papers on July 3, 2019, stating that the defense would attempt to cross-examine the victim regarding the drugs police located in the house.

“That evidence would be improper character evidence used as other crimes, wrongs or acts,” according to the motion to bar drug evidence.

“The defendant cannot bring up the drugs located in the house to show the victim is one who possess(es) drugs. This would bring unfair prejudice to the state’s case. Furthermore, evidence of the drugs has no relevance to the matter before the court. … The state anticipates the defense will argue the defendant acted out of necessity to protect (the woman) from the ‘drug house.’ ”

In his motion, Feda wrote that one of the errors the court made was to prohibit “defense counsel from cross-examining any witnesses regarding the drugs located within the two bedrooms within (the Brandywine house.) During the jury trial, this court erred when it prohibited defense counsel from offering evidence that drugs were located within the two bedrooms within (the Brandywine house.)”

Another error Feda’s filing cited was a court ruling to prohibit defense counsel from cross-examining Batavia police Officer Paul Burdett as to what he located while he conducted “a protective sweep” – a search – of the residence.

‘Affirmative defense of necessity’

The court also barred Turecek from testifying that his girlfriend wanted to leave the Brandywine house, which Feda’s filing asserted was another error.

“Chris’ belief that (the girlfriend) wanted to leave (the Brandywine house) … was relevant to both Chris’ mental state and subsequent actions. … This court erred when it held that the defense could not rely upon the affirmative defense of necessity,” according to Feda’s filing. “This court erred when it prohibited defense counsel from introducing evidence regarding guns located in (the Brandywine house.)”