People v. Webster

── People v. Webster ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (2d) 250185 No. 2-25-0185 Opinion filed May 8, 2026 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL T. WEBSTER JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kendall County. Honorable John F. McAdams, Judge, Presiding. No. 24-CM-104 JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Kennedy and Justice Hutchinson concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Kendall County, defendant, Daniel T. Webster Jr., was found guilty of violating a plenary stalking/no-contact order (720 ILCS 5/12-3.9 (West 2022)) issued in favor of H.B. Defendant argues on appeal that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His argument requires us to address the novel issue of when social media posts constitute prohibited “contact” under the Stalking No Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 21/1 et seq. (West 2022)). We affirm. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 On April 2, 2024, defendant was charged by complaint with violating a plenary stalking/no- contact order issued in favor of H.B. under the Act. The alleged date of the offense was February 5, 2024. At defendant’s September 2024 jury trial in this case, documents from the underlying proceeding, case No. 21-OP-356, were admitted into evidence. In that proceeding, on December 1, 2021, the trial court issued an emergency stalking/no-contact order in favor of H.B. The emergency order provided, inter alia, that “[defendant] may not contact [H.B.] *** in any way, directly, indirectly or through third parties, including, but not limited to, phone, written notes, mail, email, or fax.” The emergency order would expire on December 22, 2021. On March 8, 2022, the court issued a plenary stalking/no-contact order (SNCO) in favor of H.B. The SNCO reiterated the prohibition quoted above. The SNCO would expire on March 8, 2024. Also admitted at the jury trial in this case was a transcript of the March 1, 2024, hearing in case No. 21-OP-356 on H.B.’s request to extend the SNCO. ¶4 H.B. testified at the jury trial that she met defendant in 2019 through a mutual acquaintance. She and defendant became friends, but after about a year H.B. made it clear to him that she was not interested in continuing the friendship. Nonetheless, defendant repeatedly contacted her. In the fall of 2021, H.B. attended a marketing conference where attendees were encouraged to “Google [them]selves” under all versions of their names. Searching under her name, H.B. discovered an account on Twitter (currently called “X”) offering a “bounty” (i.e., a reward) for a date with H.B. The profile name for the account was “Average Joe@shuddup_dude.” H.B. suspected that the account belonged to defendant because it included a slogan that he frequently used. At the March 1, 2024, hearing in case No. 21-OP-356, defendant appeared and admitted that the Twitter profile named “Average Joe@shuddup_dude” belonged to him. On appeal, there is no dispute that the profile was defendant’s. In what follows, all social media posts we reference were from defendant’s “Average Joe@shuddup_dude” Twitter account. ¶5 H.B. recounted that she petitioned for an order of protection against defendant. She obtained an emergency order and, later, the SNCO, which would expire on March 8, 2024. After -2- the issuance of the SNCO, H.B. discove