People v. Heintz

── People v. Heintz ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2026 IL App (3d) 230161-UB Order filed April 24, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2026 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 21st Judicial Circuit, ) Kankakee County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-23-0161 v. ) Circuit No. 20-CF-469 ) WILLIAM P. HEINTZ, ) Honorable ) Kathy S. Bradshaw-Elliott, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. __________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Hettel and Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment. ___________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: (1) The court did not err by permitting defendant’s ex-wife to testify, (2) any error in admitting testimony that defendant violated a firearms protective order was harmless, and (3) the final order of protection is modified to reflect the statutorily compliant expiration date of December 8, 2031. ¶2 Defendant, William P. Heintz, appeals from his convictions for aggravated domestic battery, unlawful restraint, and domestic battery. He argues the trial court erred by (1) failing to admit evidence of the victim’s subsequent attacks on defendant, (2) permitting evidence of a previous battery against the victim but not evidence defendant was acquitted of that charge,  (3) allowing defendant’s ex-wife to testify, (4) permitting other-crimes testimony that defendant violated a firearms protective order, and (5) entering a final order of protection (OP) that does not comply with the statute. ¶3 We initially vacated defendant’s convictions and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, finding that the court erred by barring evidence of altercations between defendant and the victim which postdated the charged offense, and precluding evidence defendant was acquitted of a previous battery. People v. Heintz, 2024 IL App (3d) 230161-U, ¶¶ 26, 34, 39. Subsequently, our supreme court reversed and remanded the judgment directing us to consider defendant’s remaining claims. People v. Heintz, 2026 IL 131340, ¶ 56. We affirm as modified. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 Defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1(a) (West 2020)), aggravated domestic battery (id. § 12-3.3(a-5)), unlawful restraint (id. § 10-3(a)), and domestic battery (id. § 12-3.2(a)(1)). The charges alleged that, on August 6, 2020, defendant stood on Brianne Szalaj’s neck while running water over her face, strangled Szalaj, kept Szalaj from leaving the bathroom, and struck Szalaj about her body with his hands. Defendant claimed self-