Defendant, Found Guilty on Two Counts of Predatory Sexual Assault, Loses Appeal

The Fifth District upheld convictions for predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual assault after rejecting the defendant’s appellate challenges.

In People v. Hinman, 2024 IL App (5th) 220627-U, an Illinois jury convicted Jared Wade Hinman Sr. of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of criminal sexual assault. The defendant was sentenced to a total of 55 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections and 3 years to life of mandatory supervised release.

The defendant appealed his convictions and sentence, raising several arguments. He claimed that the State did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he was at least 17 years old when the offenses supporting the predatory criminal sexual assault charges occurred. He also argued that the trial court improperly admitted evidence concerning other alleged sexual offenses that were not part of the charged conduct. Finally, he argued that the circuit court failed to properly consider mandatory mitigating factors at sentencing.

Quick Answer

The Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence. The court concluded that the evidence allowed the jury to reasonably infer that the defendant was over 17 when the charged predatory criminal sexual assaults occurred, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other-crimes evidence under Illinois law, and that the court properly considered the applicable mitigating factors at sentencing.

The decision was filed on April 4, 2024, as a Supreme Court Rule 23 order. Under Rule 23, the order is generally not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by the rule.

Background of the Case

The defendant was born on December 27, 1982. His parents divorced when he was a child, and he later lived for part of his childhood with several younger half-siblings.

In 2002, the defendant married and later had multiple children, including a daughter identified in the appellate decision as A.H. When A.H. was approximately eight years old, she was removed from the defendant’s care following allegations of sexual abuse. The defendant was subsequently charged in a separate case involving allegations concerning his daughter.

Following those allegations, law enforcement interviewed the defendant’s half-siblings regarding potential sexual abuse. The case addressed in People v. Hinman, 2024 IL App (5th) 220627-U involved allegations concerning the defendant’s half-sister, J.J.

The State charged the defendant with two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child under 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40 and one count of criminal sexual assault under 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20.

The predatory criminal sexual assault statute generally applies when a person who is 17 years of age or older commits qualifying sexual conduct and the victim is under 13 years of age. The defendant challenged whether the State had adequately established his age at the time of the charged offenses.

The Defendant Challenged the Evidence of His Age

One of the defendant’s primary arguments on appeal was that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was over 17 years old when the charged offenses occurred.

The appellate court rejected that argument. The record established the defendant’s date of birth, and the victim provided testimony regarding her own age and the approximate timing of the charged incidents. The court concluded that the evidence, when considered as a whole, gave the jury a sufficient basis to reasonably infer that the defendant was over 17 at the relevant time.

The Court’s Conclusion

The appellate court held that the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to make the necessary reasonable inferences concerning the defendant’s age. The court therefore declined to disturb the convictions based on the sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument.

Evidence of Other Sexual Offenses Was Admitted at Trial

The State also sought permission to present evidence concerning other alleged sexual acts involving the defendant that were not the specific conduct charged in the case.

The State relied in part on 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3, which permits certain evidence of other crimes or bad acts in prosecutions for specified sexual offenses when the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The proposed evidence included testimony from the charged victim as well as testimony from several other family members, including the defendant’s half-sisters and his daughter. The State argued that the evidence was relevant to show the defendant’s propensity to commit sexual offenses and that its probative value outweighed the potential prejudice.

The defense objected, arguing that the additional allegations concerned uncharged conduct and would be overwhelmingly prejudicial. The circuit court nevertheless permitted the testimony, while reserving the ability to address objections to particular testimony during trial.

Why the Evidence Was Allowed

The trial court considered the nature and similarity of the allegations, their timing, the relationship among the witnesses, and the potential probative value of the testimony. The court determined that the proposed evidence was not substantially more prejudicial than probative.

On appeal, the Fifth District concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

The Appellate Court Upheld Admission of the Other-Crimes Evidence

The defendant argued that the testimony created an unfairly prejudicial picture of him and involved offenses for which he had not been charged in the case before the jury.

The appellate court disagreed. The court explained that the evidence was admitted under Illinois law governing other-crimes evidence in certain sexual-offense prosecutions and that the circuit court had considered the competing interests of probative value and prejudice.

After reviewing the record, the Fifth District determined that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. As a result, the defendant’s convictions were not reversed on this issue.

Defendant Also Challenged His Sentence

The defendant was sentenced to 55 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, followed by 3 years to life of mandatory supervised release. He argued that the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors that Illinois law requires a court to consider when sentencing an individual who was under 18 years old at the time of an offense.

The court considered the argument under 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105, which requires consideration of specified additional mitigating factors when a person was under 18 at the time of the offense.

The defendant argued that the circuit court did not properly consider those factors. The appellate court reviewed the sentencing record and concluded that the circuit court did consider the relevant mitigating information. The Fifth District therefore found no sentencing error requiring reversal or remand.

Appellate Result

Appellate Issues

Age, other-crimes evidence, and sentencing

Years

Illinois Department of Corrections sentence

Affirmed

Final Result

Convictions and sentence upheld

What People v. Hinman Means for Illinois Criminal Cases

People v. Hinman, 2024 IL App (5th) 220627-U demonstrates how several different issues can arise during an appeal of a serious criminal conviction. The appellate court may be asked to review the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings made before or during trial, and the sentencing court’s consideration of legally required mitigating factors.

The case also illustrates the importance of understanding Illinois rules governing other-crimes evidence. In qualifying criminal prosecutions, evidence of other alleged offenses may be admissible even when the defendant was not charged with those particular acts in the case being tried. Whether the evidence should be admitted depends on the governing statute and the circumstances of the particular case.

Because this decision was issued under Supreme Court Rule 23, it is not generally precedential. However, the decision remains useful for understanding how the Fifth District analyzed the specific appellate arguments raised in this case.

Talk to a Champaign, IL Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

Patel Law, P.C. represents the interests of Illinois residents who have been charged with serious crimes. If you or a family member is facing serious criminal charges, call our Champaign criminal defense lawyers today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help protect your rights.