People v. Jordan

── People v. Jordan ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 26, 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) 250009-U Order filed May 26, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2026 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 18th Judicial Circuit, ) Du Page County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-25-0009 v. ) Circuit No. 24-DV-323 ) TRAIVES R. JORDAN, ) Honorable ) Robert A. Miller, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE PETERSON delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Davenport and Anderson concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: (1) The evidence at trial supported a reasonable inference that defendant knowingly committed battery. (2) Counsel’s decision not to request additional jury instructions did not constitute ineffective assistance. (3) The circuit court substantially complied with the rule regarding voir dire examination. ¶2 Defendant, Traives R. Jordan, appeals his convictions, arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his battery conviction, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request jury instructions that defined intent and knowledge, and (3) the Du Page County circuit  court erred by failing to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Defendant was charged with, inter alia, resisting a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a)(1) (West 2024)) and two counts of battery (id. § 12-3(a)(1), (2)). Relevant to this appeal, the battery counts alleged that defendant knowingly and without legal justification struck Naperville police officer Jairo Perez about the face, making physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature and causing bodily harm. ¶5 During jury selection, 1 the court asked if any prospective jurors held views that would make them reluctant to serve as a member of the jury. One prospective juror responded in the affirmative, stating that it would be impossible to know if a witness was testifying truthfully. After indicating which factors can be considered when determining witness credibility, the court explained the State’s burden to present evidence and prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ended its collective juror examination shortly thereafter and began conducting individual inquiries, which included questioning regarding the principles enumerated in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). The court asked the potential jurors whether they understood and accepted that defendant is presumed innocent and that