People v. Peck
260 Ill. App. 3d 812, 633 N.E.2d 222, 198 Ill. Dec. 760 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Spitting on another person constitutes 'physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature' sufficient to support a battery conviction. Multiple convictions for offenses committed in close temporal proximity are permissible so long as each conviction is based on a separate and distinct physical act.
Facts:
- In June 1992, police officers were summoned to Sean A. Peck's residence to address a neighborhood disturbance.
- While officers spoke with Peck, he acted belligerently.
- Peck spit on one officer's face, glasses, and cheek.
- Following the spitting, the officers attempted to place Peck under arrest.
- During the arrest, Peck fought the officers by kicking and pulling away while they tried to restrain and handcuff him.
- Three officers were ultimately required to subdue and arrest Peck.
Procedural Posture:
- Sean A. Peck was charged with aggravated battery to a police officer and resisting a peace officer.
- Following a trial in an Illinois trial court, a jury found Peck guilty on both counts.
- The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of six years in prison for aggravated battery and 364 days in jail for resisting a peace officer.
- Peck, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, with the State as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does spitting on a police officer constitute 'physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature' sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated battery under Illinois law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Steigmann
Yes. Spitting on a police officer constitutes 'physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature' sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated battery. The battery statute explicitly includes contact made 'by any means,' and historical common law has long recognized spitting as an act sufficient for a battery conviction. The court determines whether contact is 'insulting or provoking' based on the factual context in which it occurs. In this case, spitting in a police officer's face during the execution of his duties is clearly insulting and provoking contact. Furthermore, Peck's conviction for resisting a peace officer was proper because it was based on a separate physical act—his struggling and kicking during the arrest—which was distinct from the act of spitting that formed the basis of the aggravated battery conviction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that battery does not require physical violence or injury; contact of an insulting or provoking nature is sufficient. It establishes that spitting, a non-violent act, can be elevated to aggravated battery when the victim is a peace officer, highlighting the protected status of law enforcement. The case also reinforces the 'separate acts' doctrine from People v. King, clarifying that multiple convictions can arise from a single, continuous criminal episode as long as the underlying physical acts for each offense are distinct, even if they occur mere moments apart.
