Is Guilty of Aggravated Battery

A person is guilty of aggravated battery and should therefore be held accountable depending upon three elements: (1) the commission of a battery, where the accused; (2) knowingly and; (3) intentionally cause a great bodily harm, or permanent disability or disfigurement. People v. Conley, 187 Ill. App. 3d 234, 241-42 (1989). An individual acts knowingly when they act knowing with practical certainty that an event will result in such a way caused by their conduct. Id. at 242. Additionally, to act intentionally is to purposely and consciously engage in conduct to accomplish a particular result. Id. at 242.

In People v. Conley, defendant, William J. Conley was convicted of aggravated battery after striking the victim, Sean O'Connell, with a wine bottle. Both parties, accompanied by their friends, were attending a party where, unlimited beer was served upon paying an admission fee. Following a brief verbal altercation, the victim was struck in the face with a wine bottle. As a result of the defendant's conduct, O'Connell sustained broken upper and lower jaws and four broken bones in the area between the bridge of his nose and the lower left cheek. Id. at 238. The question presented at trial was whether the evidence was adequate to find the defendant's intent to cause permanent disability beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court determined that in order to establish an aggravated battery conviction, the intent to cause great bodily harm may be inferred. To prove a standard of intent to cause great bodily harm the Court examined the circumstances surrounding the offense, such as the defendant's words, the weapon used, and the force of the blow. Id. at 242-43. Here, the defendant struck the victim in the face with a wine bottle without warning. Id. at 243. The defendant also acted with purpose to cause the victim harm. The force of the blow caused the victim great bodily harm, requiring the victim have root canal surgery to repair ten teeth, the victim suffered the lost of one tooth, the victim sustained a permanent condition called mucosal mouth, and permanent partial numbness in his lip. Id. at 238. Based on the inference of the conduct and the end result, the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant intended to cause permanent disability.

Furthermore, the jury may infer that a defendant is guilty of aggravated battery by distinguishing the elements of a crime. Which include, the actus reus and the mens rea. Actus reus deals with the voluntary act that causes a social harm. Here, the defendant purposefully and consciously acted to cause bodily harm to the victim. Therefore, meeting the actus reus element of the committed offense. Another critical factor to consider when distinguishing a crime is the mental state of the offender. This refers to the mens rea. It is the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes the crime. An offender cannot be guilty based on the act alone, he/ she