## Facts

- William J. Conley attended a large high-school party where alcohol was served to students.
- After a confrontation involving the victim’s group at the party, the victim, Sean O’Connell, and friends left and walked toward their car.
- A group approached the departing students; Conley confronted O’Connell and demanded a beer.
- When the demand was refused, Conley swung a wine bottle and struck O’Connell in the face.
- O’Connell suffered severe injuries, including fractures to his upper and lower jaw and multiple facial bones, the loss of a tooth, damage to other teeth requiring surgery, and continuing partial numbness in his lip.
- Conley was charged with two counts of aggravated battery; the jury convicted him of aggravated battery based on “permanent disability.”
- The trial court denied posttrial motions and imposed probation with periodic imprisonment; Conley appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim suffered “permanent disability” under the aggravated-battery statute.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Conley acted intentionally or knowingly with respect to causing permanent disability or comparable serious harm.
3. Whether alleged trial errors—limits on defense examination, impeachment using defense witnesses’ prior omissions, references to Conley’s pretrial silence, and limits on closing argument about the victim’s financial motive—required reversal.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- It held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find the victim suffered a permanent disability.
- It held the jury could infer the required mental state from the circumstances, including the use of a bottle and the forceful blow to the victim’s face.
- It found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings, impeachment, comments about silence, or restrictions on closing argument.

## Legal Principles

- “Permanent disability” in aggravated battery does not require total incapacitation; lasting impairment or reduction of normal bodily function can satisfy the element.
- A defendant’s intent or knowledge may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the act, the weapon used, and the manner and force of its use.
- Trial courts have discretion to control the scope and timing of witness examination and closing argument; restrictions are not reversible absent material prejudice.
- The prosecution may impeach credibility by highlighting prior omissions or inconsistent conduct, and not every reference to a defendant’s or witness’s prior silence constitutes a due process violation.
- Argument about a witness’s alleged financial motive may be limited where the record lacks an adequate evidentiary foundation.

## Conclusion

The court sustained an aggravated-battery conviction where a bottle strike caused serious, lasting facial and dental injuries, concluding that partial but enduring functional impairment can constitute “permanent disability” and that the required mental state may be inferred from the weapon, the blow’s force, and the surrounding circumstances.


People v. Conley, 187 Ill. App. 3d 234, 543 N.E.2d 138 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)