MOUNT VERNON – No rational judge could have found Bradley Van Hoose of Belleville guilty of assault, according to Fifth District appellate judges who found him not guilty on July 23.
They reversed former St. Clair County associate judge Randall Kelley, who fined Van Hoose $250 and placed him on supervision for a year.
In an interview Van Hoose said, “I just wish my father was here so I could show him this decision from people that read every entry in my case.
“They didn’t know me and they followed the rule of law,” Van Hoose said.
His father Henry Daniel Van Hoose Sr. died nine months after Kelley held trial.
Fifth District judges identified Henry as Brad’s “estranged father.”
They dug deeply for clues to Van Hoose’s conduct on April 15, 2016, when he shouted at Caseyville mayor Leonard Black.
They could have steered clear of the case by ruling that Van Hoose’s completion of a one-year supervision rendered it moot, but they chose to tackle it.
Justice Randy Moore wrote that a finding of guilt has practical consequences whether it qualifies as conviction or not.
“It can affect one’s ability to obtain work and can negatively affect one’s reputation in the community, among other things,” Moore wrote.
“This is especially true in the Internet age where a finding of guilt, even if dismissed, may persist online.”
He wrote that he would first discuss interactions among Van Hoose, Black, and Bob Romanik, the former grim reaper of radio.
Background in the ruling indicates that on March 21, 2016, Romanik hosted a live show at the courthouse and Van Hoose showed up to protest.
Moore wrote that according to Van Hoose, Romanik said Van Hoose better be careful what he said because Romanik could be his father.
“Romanik then went on to make a comment about whether or not he would have intercourse with the defendant’s mother,” he wrote.
He wrote that Van Hoose made a derogatory comment about Romanik’s son. The next day, Romanik said callers informed him that a protester at the courthouse was a pedophile. Romanik admitted to calling the defendant Brad Van Loser on multiple occasions and telling him to get a job.
Moore wrote that on April 13, 2016, according to Van Hoose, he received a call from his father whom he hadn’t spoken to in nearly two years.
“In that call, the defendant’s father used profanities towards the defendant and said that the defendant was the pedophile protester,” Moore wrote.
He wrote that Van Hoose testified he believed Black was responsible for giving Romanik the idea of calling his father.
“The Black and Van Hoose families were well acquainted because Black’s son married the defendant’s sister and because the defendant had supported Black during his campaign for mayor,” he wrote.
He wrote that Black and Van Hoose fell out after the election, and that Van Hoose publicly criticized Black’s performance in office and alleged that he received undisclosed gifts from Romanik.
On April 15, 2016, Black and Romanik agreed to meet for coffee at South Main Diner in Caseyville.
Van Hoose was on the lower level, on the patio of Jessi’s Hideout tavern.
Trial produced three accounts of what happened next.
Van Hoose testified he saw Black on the parking lot and “gave him a piece of my mind” for calling him a pedophile and bringing his father into it. He said he retrieved his keys from Jessi’s, mounted his motorcycle, and started it. He said Romanik drove up and got out of his car, “his arms and his mouth going. I really couldn’t hear him.”
He said he stated to Romanik, “I’m the fella you’ve been calling the pedophile protester on the air. Do you feel like calling me that now?”
He said he left on his motorcycle.
Black testified he heard Van Hoose “cussing and carrying on, calling me names, said he’s going to get me.”
He said he was nervous as to what the defendant might do. He said he walked up an incline and Van Hoose followed him as far as he could because of a retaining wall.
He said Van Hoose went back into Jessi’s and returned “flying up the hill” on his motorcycle.
He said Van Hoose saw Romanik and started yelling, “I’m going to kill you. I’m going to kill you both.”
He said Van Hoose had not called him names like that or made comments of a personal nature like that prior to this incident.
He said the distance between them was 15 to 20 feet.
Black acknowledged that at a hearing on an order of protection following the incident, he testified that Van Hoose kept a safe distance.
“I was not within close range where something could happen right there,” he said.
Romanik testified he saw and heard the altercation between Black and Van Hoose.
He said he heard it despite his windows being rolled up and his radio playing.
He said Van Hoose told Black he’d kill him and told Romanik he’d kill him too.
“According to Romanik, the defendant was walking with his motorcycle when the comments were made and then the defendant got on his motorcycle and left,” he wrote.
Caseyville police arrested Van Hoose roughly five months later.
In September 2016, grand jurors indicted him on a felony charge of threatening a public official.
Van Hoose waived a jury trial, and Kelley held bench trial on Feb. 17, 2017.
After hearing testimony, Kelley said the state failed to connect Van Hoose’s threats to Black’s elected position.
Still, he found the threats credible and pronounced guilt on misdemeanor assault as a lesser offense within the felony.
Fifth District judges ruled that Kelley had authority to find Van Hoose guilty of assault but didn’t have the evidence.
Moore wrote that assault occurs when an individual engages in conduct that places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.
He wrote that it involves a threatening gesture or an otherwise innocent gesture made threatening by words.
Moore quoted a decision stating, “In Illinois, we have held that words alone are not usually enough to constitute an assault.”
He quoted a decision stating, “Some action or condition must accompany these words before there is a violation of the statute.”
In Van Hoose’s case, Moore found “no evidence of conduct or threatening gestures accompanying the threatening words that would have placed a reasonable person in apprehension of imminent harm or injury.”
He wrote that neither Black nor Romanik testified that Van Hoose made gestures of a threatening nature, and that the only action that could fall within the realm of threatening movement was Black’s testimony that Van Hoose flew up the hill.
He wrote that Romanik testified differently.
“Black never testified or implied that the motorcycle was driven at him or that it ever got close to his person,” he wrote.
He wrote that whether Van Hoose straddled his motorcycle or held it, it would have restricted his movement.
He wrote that a retaining wall prevented Van Hoose from following Black in the earlier encounter. He found no evidence that Van Hoose had a weapon or threatened to use one.
“While there was evidence presented of a strong dislike between the parties, that alone is not sufficient to overcome Illinois’ long standing case law that words alone are insufficient for a finding of assault,” he wrote.
Justices David Overstreet and Mark Boie concurred.
The Fifth District published the opinion as binding precedent that will allow defendants to clear their names even if the records show no conviction.
“Where the offense of which the defendant is found guilty may be considered in future proceedings or sentencing as an enhancement or aggravating factor, then there is a interest in being able to challenge that finding of guilt,” he wrote.
Public defender Richard Whitney of Carbondale represented Van Hoose.
Appellate prosecutor Patrick Daly represented the state.
At trial, appellate prosecutor David Rands represented the state. Attorney Jack Daugherty represented Van Hoose at trial.