Background
Ross McCray sought an emergency and plenary order of protection against his former dating partner, Xzavier Lee. McCray alleged that after their relationship ended, Lee repeatedly contacted him, including 112 calls between 2:44 a.m. and 8 a.m. on October 15, 2025. McCray also testified that Lee left a voicemail saying McCray would “pay in blood,” made another threat, made statements suggesting suicidality, and tried to strike McCray with a car.
The Lake County circuit court entered an emergency order and later a plenary order of protection. Lee appealed pro se. Because no hearing transcript was available, the appellate record included a trial-court-certified bystander’s report, which credited McCray’s testimony and found Lee not credible.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the plenary order of protection. The court held that Lee’s undisputed repeated calls supported a finding of harassment under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, which presumes emotional distress from repeatedly telephoning a petitioner’s home or residence unless rebutted.
The court rejected Lee’s arguments that the calls were merely an emotional outburst after a breakup and that threats were required. Those arguments lacked supporting authority, and one cited case did not exist. The court also declined to consider claims contradicting or unsupported by the certified bystander’s report, including Lee’s assertion that the report was inaccurate and that the trial court excluded evidence.
Key Takeaways
- More than 100 calls in several early-morning hours supported a finding of statutory harassment.
- The Domestic Violence Act does not require threats or a calculated intent to intimidate for repeated calls to constitute harassment.
- An appellant must use the proper procedure to correct a certified bystander’s report; otherwise, the report is accepted as accurate on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that concentrated, repeated calling can justify a plenary protective order even if it occurs during a single emotional episode following a breakup. It also underscores the appellate consequences of relying on assertions outside the record or unsupported—and especially nonexistent—authority.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is nonprecedential except as permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).