In re Commitment of Williams

── In re Commitment of Williams ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 240128-U No. 1-24-0128 SIXTH DIVISION May 8, 2026 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ____________________________________________________________________________ In re COMMITMENT OF ANTONIO ) Appeal from the WILLIAMS ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Cook County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) No. 11 CR 80012 v. ) ) Antonio Williams, ) The Honorable ) James B. Novy, Respondent-Appellant.) ) Judge, presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice C.A. Walker and Justice Gamrath concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We affirm the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury trial finding respondent to be a sexually violent person and the court’s order committing him to institutional care in a secure facility where the State’s closing and rebuttal arguments were proper. We further find that the court did not err in failing to voir dire the jury regarding possible juror misconduct. ¶2 Following a jury trial, respondent Antonio Williams was found to be a sexually violent person pursuant to the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act) (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2010)). After a dispositional hearing, the court ordered Williams to be committed to a secure facility for treatment. On appeal, respondent contends the State committed prosecutorial  1-24-0128 misconduct during its closing arguments, and the trial court erred by not questioning jurors about falling asleep during testimony. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 On May 31, 2011, the State filed a petition to commit respondent as a sexually violent person under the Act. According to the petition, respondent had been convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and aggravated criminal sexual assault in case numbers 05 CR 15937 and 91 CR 17851 and sentenced to terms of 12 and 14 years’ imprisonment, respectively. ¶5 The State attached the report of Dr. Deborah Nicolai, a clinical psychologist. Using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), 4th Edition, DSM-IV (DSM-IV), Dr. Nicolai diagnosed respondent with (1) paraphilia, not otherwise specified, sexually attracted to non-consenting females (OSPD nonconsent); and (2) antisocial personality disorder. She opined that respondent met the criteria for this diagnosis as he “has evidenced recurrent sexual urges and behaviors that involved non-consenting females.” His first known sex offense occurred when he was 18 years old, and his last known sex offense, for which was convicted, took place when he was 32 years old. At the time of the report, respondent had a history of “very limited participation”