Appellate court reinstates Geneva man’s domestic battery conviction

The Illinois Second District Appellate Court in Elgin reversed itself in a domestic battery conviction of a Geneva political campaign adviser – which it overturned in 2021 – and ruled June 12 to reinstate his conviction, based on another appellate decision.

Jeffrey N. Ward, 65, said he would appeal.

“They criminalized my defense ex post facto,” Ward said. “This is a win for me. The appellate court outlined my next step perfectly. I will file a motion for rehearing. You can’t criminalize a defense after the fact. It can’t be done. ... If I have to go to the federal court level, I’m going to win it.”

In light of his conviction being reinstated, Kane County Democrats – who had recently signed a contract with Ward for political consulting – entered into a separation agreement Tuesday.

“Our executive board made this decision in response to unresolved litigation regarding Mr. Ward that we were unaware of when we originally signed the contract for his consultant services,” according to Kane County Democratic Chairman Mark Guethle’s text. “When Mr. Ward’s current situation is resolved, we will reconsider this matter at that time.”

Ward did not respond to a follow up text and voicemail message seeking comment about the separation agreement.

The issue in both court cases was whether the victim felt insulted or provoked by being pushed.

In its 35-page unanimous ruling to reinstate Ward’s conviction, the Second District Appellate Court determined that how a victim felt is not the issue, but that the very action of being pushed is considered provoking and insulting.

Ward was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery after a jury trial Dec. 18, 2018.

It stemmed from an incident on June 1, 2018 in which Ward and his wife responded to a car crash involving their 18-year-old son.

An officer asked Ward’s wife her son’s age and when she answered, Ward “pushed her forcefully … with both hands. His hands made contact with her in the area of her right shoulder and lower neck area. The push caused [her] to lose her balance and take a few steps back to her left,” according to the police report.

Ward’s actions were witnessed by both officers, according to the report.

At the time, Ward said the incident, as described by police, did not occur and that the charges were retaliation by police.

When the Second District overturned Ward’s conviction, it found that the state “is required to prove that the physical contact insulted or provoked the victim.” Ward’s wife testified that “she was not insulted or provoked by defendant’s contact,” and so, “defendant’s conviction is reversed.”

But the Illinois Supreme Court noted a decision by the Fifth District Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon, People v. Davidson in directing the Second District to reconsider the Ward case.

Lance Davidson was convicted of aggravated battery of a Montgomery County corrections officer in that he pushed him March 28, 2018.

On appeal, Davidson argued that the evidence failed to prove that “Officer Stitt subjectively found the physical contact insulting or provoking,” according to the decision.

The Fifth District Court on Jan. 20, 2023 affirmed Davidson’s conviction, holding that it is not necessary for the victim of a battery to testify that he was insulted or provoked, according to the decision.

“While Leslie’s testimony was clearly relevant, under the reasonable person standard articulated in Davidson, the focus is ‘the nature of the contact, not the actual impact on the victim, that must be established,’” according to the ruling. “Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the State’s burden of proof. ... We affirm defendant’s conviction.”

Appellate Justice Susan Hutchison wrote a specially concurring opinion.

“For me, this has always been a straightforward sufficiency-of-the-evidence case, and while how Leslie felt should always be a consideration, it has never been dispositive,” Hutchison wrote. “I believe a reasonable person would have felt insulted or provoked by such alarming contact, particularly from an intimate partner, in public, in front of two police officers and the driver of the car from the accident with defendant’s son.

Ward disputed the accuracy of the court’s decision.

“The law was, when I was tried and the appeal was granted, was that insulting and provoking contact was subjective,” Ward said. “You had to look through the eyes of the person for whom contact was made. Now they say it’s objective. ... It’s patently unfair to say that six years down the road.”

Northern Illinois University law professor emeritus Jeffrey Parness said Ward could argue that Davidson should not apply to him because the court applied a new case to a pending case.

“My opinion is, why would the Illinois Supreme Court send a case back for reconsideration if they did not think it was possible for a new case to apply to a pending case?” Parness said. “Sometimes new cases apply to pending cases – and sometimes not. ln light of Davidson, does it apply at all? And if it does apply to the Ward case, are they comparable?”