No. 2-08- 0889 fi le d: 8-6-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 07-- CF--3086 ) UDELL T. ROGERS, ) Ho no r ab le ) Ro ber t J. And er so n, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEZE

NO FF de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Foll owing a j ur y trial, de f en da n t, Ud ell T
. Ro ge r s, wa s c o nvic t ed o f cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult of a fam il y m em ber under 18 ye ars of age (720 ILCS 5/12--13(a)(3) (West 2008)). He was sentenc ed to 10 y ears ' i m pri sonm en t. On appe al , de f

en da nt a rguestha t the tri al cou rt com m i tted r evers i bl e error by f ai l i n g to com pl y wi th Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 431 (b) (O f

f i cial Reports A

dva nc e Sheet No. 8 ( Ap r il 11, 2007), R. 431(b), eff

. May 1, 2007) in tha

t it did n ot ask each

pot entia l juro r w het her he o r she
un ders tood an d acc epted

each of th e f our k ey prin ci ple s of cri

mi nal trial s. For the reasons that fo llo w, we affir m. BACK GROUND On January 15, 2008, defen

dant was i ndicted on three counts o f cri mi nal sexu al as sa ul t f or kn o win gly

com m i tti ng ac ts of sex ual pen etrati on wi

th h i s m i nor s tepdau

ghter, S.S. Count I all

eged that defend ant place d his pe nis in the s ex or gan o f S. S. ; c o un t I I alle ge d t ha t de fen da nt pla ce d h isNo. 2-- 08--0889

-2-

m outh on the sex

organ of S.S.; and count III all eged that de f

en da n t pl ac ed h i s p en i s i n th e m outh of S.S. Fo llowing a ju ry t r ial, de f en da n t wa s c on v i cte d of cou n t I a n d acq ui tted of cou n ts II an d III. The tri al cou rt de ni ed de f en da nt' s m oti on for a new tri al

and s ent ence d him to 10 yea rs' impr isonment followed by a term of man da tory su pe rvi se d re l ea se

of 3 y ea rs to l i f e. A f ter th e d en i al of hi s m oti on to reconsider sentence, def endan t t im el y a ppeal ed. AN AL YSIS Defend ant argu es

th at h e w as den i ed h i s r i gh t to a fair and impart ial jury as gu ar ant eed by the si xth and f ourt eenth am

endm ents to t he Un

ited States Constitution and a rt icle I, sec t ion 8 , o f the I llino is Constitution, whe

n th e tr i al cou rt f ai l ed to f ul l y com pl y wi th the re qui rem en ts of R ule 431 (b). Defend ant ack now ledge s t hat he did no t pr ese rve t hi s i ss ue f or a pp el l ate re v i ew , but u

rg es usto consider it under the pl ai n- err ordo ct r ine
. T he St at e c o nc ed es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did no t fully c o mply wi th Ru le 4 31 ( b) , bu t maint ain s t ha t de fen da nt did no t o ve r co me his f orfe i ture be ca us e h e h asnot establ i shed rev

ersi bl e pl ai n error. The pla in- er r o rdo ct r ine is a n e xc ep t io n t o t he ge ne r al r ule o f fo r feit ur e, an d w e in vo ke it o nly when necess ary to prot ect a defen dant's ri ght to a fai

r, though not a perfect, trial a nd to pro tect t he i n teg ri ty of the judi ci al process. See Peop l e v . He rron , 215 Ill . 2d 167, 177 (2005). We m ay review anot herwisefor feite d issu e whe n eithe r ( 1) "t he evide nce in a c ase is so clos ely balanced t hat t he jury's guil ty ve rdi ct may have resulted from the erro r and not t he evi dence" or (2 ) "the err or is so seri ous t hat t he de fendant was denied a su bst ant ial right , a ndthus a fai r tr ial ." Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 178-79. The

def endan t bea rs the bur den of p ersuasi

on un der b oth prong s. Herron , 21 5 I ll. 2d at 187. The defen

dant must show that the "error caused a sev ere t hr ea t t o t he fair ne ss " o f t he t r ial.No. 2-- 08--0889

-3-

( E mph as is i

n ori gi na l .) People v . Hopp , 209 Ill . 2d 1, 12 (20 04) ; s eealso Peo ple v. Keene , 16 9 I ll. 2d 1, 17 (19 95) (" Esse

ntial l y , the f ai rne ss of the tri al m ust b e un derm i ne d"). Th e th

res hol d qu es ti on in plai n-e rror anal y si s i s wh ethe r error occu

rred. Pe o ple v. Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d 465, 46 7 (200 9), ci ting Peop l e v . Na

y l or , 229 Il l . 2d 584 , 593 (2 008). Defend ant contends that error occurred when the tri al court faile d t o co mply w it h Rule 431(b). Rule 431 governs vo ir di re and was a

me nde d in 1997 to codi fy the d ecisio n in Peo ple v. Zehr , 103 Ill . 2d 472 (1984), which hel d that "essenti al

to the qualif

ic ation of j urors in a cri

mi nal case is th at th ey kn ow th at a de f en da n t i s pre su med i n n oce n t, t hat he is no t re quir ed t o o ffer any evi dence in his ow n behalf, t hat he must be pr ove d gu ilty beyond a re as onab l e doub t, a n d th at h i s f ai l ur e to testi f y i n h i s own beha l f can not be he l d aga i nst hi m ." Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 468, quo ting Zehr , 103 Ill . 2d at 477. In i

ts origin al form , Rule 431(b) required a tri al cou rt to ad moni sh an d qu es ti on pr os pec t ivej uror s on

what a re n owknown as the Zehr pri

n ci pl es onl y wh en re qu ested b y a def en da n t. Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d a

t 469 . A men de d i n 2 007 , Ru

l e 4 31( b)now i m pos esan af f i rm ati ve obl i ga ti on on tria l courts to do so. Pe o ple v. Schaef er , 398 I ll. A pp . 3d 96 3, 96 7 ( 20 10 )
. I n it s e nt ire t y, t he rule pro vides: "The co ur t shall ask e ach p ot ent ial juro r, individually or in a group, whether th at j uror understands

and accepts the f

oll owing pri nci ple s: (1) that t he de fendant is pre sumed innoce nt of t he ch ar ge ( s) ag ain st him o r he r; (2 ) t h at b ef orea def en da n t ca n b e c on v i cte d th e S tate must pr ov e th e def en da n t gui l ty b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t; (3 ) that the de f

en da nt i s n ot required t o o ffer an y evid en ce o n his or her ow n behalf; and ( 4) t hat t he de fendant 's f ail ure to tes ti f y ca nn ot be hel d against him o rhe r ; ho we ve r , no inq uir y o f a p r o sp ec t ive jur o rsha ll be m ade into the defendant's fai lure to t estify

when the defen

dant o bj ects.No. 2-- 08--0889

1 The re po rt of p ro cee dings c ont ains no indicat ion t hat t he veni repersons not cal l ed to the j ury box were ex cus ed. W

hen pr ospectiv e j urors f rom e ach of the pan

el s we re later excu sed , ne w pr os pec t ivejuro rs w er e immediate ly call ed fr om t he venire to the jury box. Wh

en one group was calle d after f our persons f

rom panel 2 had b een ex

cused, the court st ated, "An d, again, you'v

e seen t his pro cess -- so rr y, you 've se en t his pro ces s befo re ," indicat ing t hat t he venire had be en pr ese nt dur ingthe enti

re vo ir di re . A t t he e nd o f vo ir di

re , a fte r se lect ion o f the t wo alte rna t e jur or s, t he
co ur t t ha nk ed an d e xc us ed t he en t ire ve nir e, wh ich wa s s t ill in t he co ur t r o o m. -4- The cou rt' s m eth od of i n qui ry sh al l prov i de each j uror a n opp ortu n i ty to re sp on d to sp ec ific questions c oncerni ng the pri nci ple s set out in

this section." Of

fi ci al Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April

11, 2007), R. 431(b), eff. May 1, 2007. Defend ant argues that the trial court erred when i

t faile d to ask 11 of the 12 em

panel ed j urors if

they
un ders tood any of t he Zehr prin

ci ple s and f ai le d to question 10 of

them about Rule 431(b )(3)--t hat de fend ant wa s no t re qu ire d t o o ffer any e vide nce o n his o wn b eha lf. The re cord r ev

ea l s th at, i n i ts open i ng r em arks to the en tire veni re on t he aft er noo n of Ju ne 17, the trial

court in structed all

of the prospective

jurors on ea ch

of thef ou r Zehr princi

ples. Thereaf ter, 12 prospe cti

ve j urors we re ca l l ed to the j ury

box f or vo ir di re in two pane ls of six ea ch. While t he t rial co ur t add re ssed t he first pane l (t hos e six sea t ed in t he fro nt of t he jur y box) , t he se co nd pa ne l sa t in t he ba ck o f t he jur y bo x. T he en t ire ve nir e w as st ill pr es en t in t he co ur t r o o m. 1 The trial court specifi

cally addressed

the fi rst panel wi th res pect to Rul

es 4 31(b )(1), (b )(2), and (b )(4 ) by

tel l i n g th ose pote ntial juro rs t hat defend ant was pr esu med t o be not guilt y, t hat t he Sta te h ad to prov e def

en da n t gui l ty by p r o o f be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t , t ha t de fen da nt did not have to tes ti f y , an d that if de f en da nt c hos e n ot to tes ti f y the j uror s c oul

d n ot hol d i t agai nst hi m . The courtNo. 2-- 08--0889

-5-

also as ke d e ac h m

em be r of the f i rs t pa ne l whether h

e or s he ha d a ny "q ua rre l ordisa gr eemen t" wi th any of t hos e t hre e pr inciples. E ach member re spo nded in the ne gat ive . Therea f ter , the S tate questioned

t he first pane l and as ked t o e xcus e o ne member, who t hen left t he co ur t r o o m. The court then cal l ed an other pe rson (Juror A ) f rom th e v en i re to the j ury

box . The

court i nstructed J

uror A
on all f our o f the Zehr pri

nc i pl es a nd i nqu i red wh ethe r Juror A had a ny quar re l or disag re ement wi th any of those four princi

ples, to which Juror A respo nded that he did not. The Stat e accepted the fi rst pa ne l. The record i

ndi cates that the en tire veni re re t ur ned t he nex

t morni ng an d that t hose who had been in the jury box were agai

n seated t her e. Defend ant que st ioned t he me mb ers of the f

irst pan el and excu sed one me

mb er, who then left the courtro om. The trial court calle dan

othe r pe rs on f rom t he ven ire (Juror B) to be seated in the front of the j ury

box with thef

i rs t panel . The

tria l court in structed Juro r B on the presum ption of i nnocen ce (Rul e 431(b)(1)) and Juror B in dic ated t hat he ha d n o qua rre l ordis agreem

ent wi th it. Upon further questionin g by the court , Juror B repli ed that he understood t hat the State was re qui re d to pr ove defend ant 's gu ilt and t hat defend ant did no t have to prove hi s i

nnocen ce and that he h

ad no q ua rre l or disa gre em en t wi th th ose pri nc i ples . Ju ror B also in dic ated tha

t he coul d f ol l ow the c ourt' s i

ns tructi on n ot to hol d i t ag ai ns t de f en da nt i f he ch ose not t o t est ify. T he cou

rt th en aske d J uror B if t he r e w as an y re as o n he co uld no t be fair an d imp ar t ial,
an d J uror B said t her e wa s no t . Aft er que st ioning Ju ro r B, defend ant acc ept ed t he first pane l. The State the n q ue sti one d J uror B, i nc l udi ng aski ng w hether J uror B woul

d si gn a gui l ty v erdi ct f orm if he wer e co nvinced o f defend ant 's gui l t "be y ond a reas onab l e doubt." The Stat e then accepted t he f irst pa ne l. T he co ur t ad minist er ed t he o at h t o t he firs t pa ne l an d d ire ct ed it t o wa it in t he jur y ro o m.No. 2-- 08--0889

2 The tria l courtexpr essly que st ioned Jur or A on t he pr inciple tha t defend ant need not pr ese nt -6- Af ter th e f i rs t pa n el l ef t th e c our tr o o m, t he t r ial c o ur t qu es t io ne d t he se co nd pa ne l, t he six pe o ple who had b een si

tt in g in the back of

the jury box. Each m

em ber of the se cond panel

in dic ated that he or she h

ad no quarrel or di sagreem

ent wi th the prin

ci ple s of Rul

es 431 (b) (1 ) a nd ( b)( 2) and
wo uld be ab le t o fo llo w R ule 431(b)(4). The trial court then i

nqui redwhet her , a fte r he ar ing all the questions, t her e wa s any re aso n t hat t he pa nel members c ou ld no t be fair and im partial . Each m

em ber answered in the negati

ve. The State then questione d the second pan el and ac ce pte d i

t. Af ter de fen da nt qu es t io ne d t he se co nd pa ne l, he ex cu se d fo ur o f it s me mbe r s, wh o left t he co ur t r o o m. The t rial co ur t t hen ca lled fou r mo re per so ns fro m the ve nire t o be sea t ed w ith t he s eco nd panel i n the j ury box . The se f

our prospe cti

ve j urors i ndi cated th at they had no qu

arre lwit h t he prin ci ple s of Rules 431(b)(1) an d (b )(2) an

d tha t they could f oll ow Rul e 431 (b)(4 ). The

tria l court then as ke d t he se fo ur if

there was any

reason that had not been di scussed wh y t he y co uld no t be fair and i mpa rtial ; each responded i

n the n egative. The reaf ter, upon agreem

ent of the parties , the trial court excused one

of the f our new panel
mem bers. Af ter cal l i ng, a nd u l tim atel y ex cus i ng, th ree m ore m em bers of the v en

i re, the tria l court calle d Juror C. The tr ia

l c ourt questioned

Juror C, as it had the maj ority of the pro spective j uro rs, about Rul es431 (b )(1 ), (b)(2 ), a nd (b )(4 ) an d w he the r th ere wa s a ny reason he co uld no t be fair a nd impa r t ial. Afte r q ues t ioning Ju ro r C, t he Sta te and d efenda nt acc ept ed t he se co nd pa nel. T he se co nd pane l was sw or n in and left t he co ur t ro om while t wo alte rna t es w er e se lect ed in a s imi lar fashio n. The re cord e sta

b l i sh es th at t he trial cour t faile d t o qu es t io n a ll bu t Ju r o rB a bo ut t he ir unde rst anding (as opposed t o acceptance) of the Zehr pr inciples and all but Jur or s A and B re gar ding Ru le 431(b)(3) (the

pri nc i pl e tha t def endan t nee d not pre sen

t any evi den ce). 2 The t rial co ur t 's f

ail ureNo. 2-- 08--0889

any ev i den ce , pu

rsua n t to Rul e 4 31(

b) (3) . The c ourt q

ue sti one d J uror B regardin

g hi s acceptance
and un derstand i ng of the f act tha t def endan t di d not "h

av e to prove [his] i

nn ocence." -7- to ful l y com pl y wi th Ru l e 431 (b) c onsti

tuted error. See Pe o ple v. Willis , No. 1- -08--2609, sli p op. at 9 ( May 21 , 2 010 ) ( hold ingthat er ro r o ccu rr ed w her e t he t rial co ur t failed t o q ues t ion any o f the pr os pec t ivejur

ors abou t R ule 431 (b)( 3)) ; Bla ir , 39 5 I l l . A pp . 3d at 4 76 (the tr

i al cou rt' s f ai l ur e to fully c o mply

with Rule 431(b) co nstituted er ror ). We must now determi

ne wh ether that erro r rises to the lev el

of re ve rsi bl e pl ai n error. Defend ant ma

kes no a rg ument t hat t he evide nce w as c lose ly balanced u nder t he first pr ong of t he plain- er ro r d oc t rine. Rat her , he co nt ends t hat , u nder t he se co nd pr ong , t he trial cou rt' s error was so serious that

it r esu lted in the d enial of his su bst ant ial right to a fai r and i mpa rtial jury and thus
r eq uir es r ev er sa l. The right at issue he re is the right t o a fair and i m partial j ury . Vo ir di

re pr omo t es t hat right "by allo win g t he co ur t an d t he pa r t ies 't o as ce r t ain su ffic ie nt inf ormation about pro spective j uro rs' belie fs an d opi ni ons so a s to al l ow re

mova l of thos e m em be rs of the ven ire wh ose mi ndsare so closed by bia s a nd pr eju dic e t ha t t he y ca nno t ap ply the law as i

nstruct ed.' " Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 477-78, quo t ing People v . Cloutier , 1 56 I ll. 2d 4 83, 495 -9 6 ( 199 3) . R ule 43 1( b)'s mand at e t o includ e t he Zehr prin ci ple s i n the vo ir di

re h el psto ensu re aga inst jur y bias reg ar ding t he four bedrock prin ci ple s of our crim in al jus tices ys tem. See Bla ir , 3 95 I ll. App. 3d a t 478 . We loo k t o t he fact s and ci rcumstances of t he cas e befo re us t o d et er mine whet her defend ant has dem onstrated t hat the trial
co ur t 's f ai l ur e to c on du ct vo ir di

re in fu ll co mplia nc e w it h Rule 43 1( b) co mpr o mise d h is r igh t t o a fa ir and i mpa rtial jury and thereb

y c aused a sev

ere threat t o t he f

ai rness of hi s trial . See Hopp , 20 9 I ll. 2d at 12 (under the plai

n-error do ctrine, the def

endan t bears the burden

of sh owing a severe threatNo. 2-- 08--0889

3 As we di scuss b el ow, at oral ar gu me n t de f en da n t cl ari f i ed h i s p osi ti on --th at a n y f ai l ur e to ful ly compl y w ith R ule 431(b) constitutes structural error, whi ch i s automatical

ly reversi ble. -8- to the fairness o f the t rial); Schaef er , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 971 (under ei ther prong of pla

in error, we l ook t o t he fact s and circu msta nces of t he case be fore us) ; Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 479 , 4 82 ( hold ing that "[g]iv

en the m ann er in which vo ir di

re was co nduc t ed * **, t his pur po se w as no t achieve d" a nd the def endan t's ri ght to a f ai r and i m partial j ury wascom prom i sed ). Esse ntial l y , def endan t asse rts two clai

m s of error un der R ule 431 (b). Ini

tial ly , he contends that th e tr i al cou rt f ai l ed to as k 1 1 o f t he 12 jur o r s if t he y un ders tood each of the f our Zehr princi

ples,
as o pp o se d t o wh et he rt he y accepted (ha d any qu ar re l or disag re ement wit h) the pri nc i ples. As n ot ed above, we a gr ee w ith d efenda nt t hat t his omission c ons t itu t ed e rr or . H ow ever , d efenda nt makes no ar gument in

hi s briefs as to how t he trial

court 's f ai lure to question 11 of the prospecti ve j urors about t he ir understandi

ng of the Zehr pr inc iple s c o mp romi sedhis r ig ht t o a f air an d i mp ar t ial j ur y. 3 Ac co r di ng ly, defen

dant's contention is

forfe ited . See Pederson v. Mi-Jack Products, I nc. , 38 9 I ll
. App. 3d 33, 44 (200 9) (fai lur e to pr ovide argumen t in s upport of contention on appe al violates Supreme Court Ru

l e 341 (h) (2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 3 41(h

)) an d resul ts i n f orfe i ture). Nonetheless, t he juro rs indica t ed t hat t hey co uld fo llow t he ad monit ions and stri ctures that t he judge re l ate d. S i

n ce th ey i n di ca ted th at th ey cou l d f oll ow th em , i t i s rea son ab l e to concl

ude that they h ad suf f i ci en t un der st anding t o c omp ly with t hem. Fu rt her mor e, all members o f the sec ond pa ne l, in cl udin g those later cal

le d from the ven ire, h ad been present when

the trial court questioned Ju ror B a bo ut his u nde rs t and ing o f t he fa ct that d efen dant did n

ot have to pr ove hi s i

nnocen ce. Theref ore, all m

em bers of the s econd panel were aware that understandi ng the pri

nci ple s was i m por tan t. Th e t ria l co ur t t hen sp ec ifically as ke d fi ve m em bers of the s econ

d pan el who wereNo. 2-- 08--0889

-9-

ult imat ely se lec t ed if t he r e w as an y re aso n t ha t ea ch o f t he m co uld no t be fair an d imp ar t ial. Al thougha l ack of unde

rstandi ng would h

ave b een such

a reason, all i

ndicated that there

was none. Moreover, t he r epo rt s o f pro cee dings fr om t he j ury selection as a w

hole dem onstrate t hat, had any of the prospectiv

e j urors n ot understood an

y of the pri nc i ples, the atm

osphere of the vo ir di

re was such t hat he o r she co uld have ask ed. Ind eed , d ur ingt he St at e's q ues t ioning o f the se con d pa ne l of pr os pec t ivejurors, one of the pan el members int er ru pt ed t he pr oc ess t o info rm t he co ur t t hat he might have giv en an in correct response to o ne of the que stions posed. Thi s i nd i ca testha t ha d a ny of t he pr os pec t ivej uror s n

ot un de rs tood s ometh

i ng , h e or she h ad the freedom

to respond durin

g vo ir di re . On t his rec ord, the

cou rt' s om i ss i on r eg ard i ng pote nti al j uror s' un ders tan di ng of the Zehr prin

ci ple s di d n o t co mp r o mise de fe nd an t 's r ig ht t o a f air an d i mp ar t ial j ur y. Defend ant next co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t 's failure t o q ues t ion 1 0 o f the 12 em pan eled j urors about t he pr inciple in Rule 43 1( b)( 3) , t hat defend ant was not re quir ed t o p re sent any evi dence, den

ie d him the righ t t o a fai r and i mpa rtial jury. We di sag ree. D efen dant not only

testifi ed on hi s own beh alf, bu t als o ca lled his wif e t o t es t ify. Gi

ve n th es e f ac ts, th e tri al cou rt' s om i ss i on co uld no t have
se r io us ly co mpr o mis ed defen dant's ri ght to a fai

r and i mpa rtial jury. See Willis , sli

p op. at 14 (a nalyzing

under the second prong of pl

ai n error and holdin

g that t he def

endan t was not deprived

of
a fair t rial by the t rial co ur t 's failure t o c omp ly with Rules 431 (b) (3 ) a nd ( b)( 4) beca use t he "de fendant pres en ted ev i den ce th rough his own testi mony "). Nonetheless, defen

dant argues t hat , be cau se t he jur or s we re not que st ioned abo ut t he fact that he was not required to present evidence, they mi ght have th oug h t th at he wa s re quir ed t o p re sent phy si cal ev ide nc e o rso met hing o t he rt ha n t es t imo ny. Ac co r din g t o de fen da nt , t his w as es pe cia lly tru e sin ce the St ate pr esented numerous exhi bi ts and four expert witnesses.No. 2-- 08--0889

-10-

Defe n dant 's argu

men t i s b el i ed b y th e rec ord . In

addres si n g th e v en i re , the trial c our t
ex pl ai n ed , " [D ef

en da n t] doesn 't hav e to say

an y thi ng, d o any thi ng, or prove a

ny thi ng a t thi s tri al ." Af ter explaining and re ading t he in dictmen t, the tr ial cour t instruct ed the veni

re as to how the pr ocess of the trial

would unf

old. The court t hen

stated: "[De f endan t], as I told y

ou, does n

ot have to prese

nt an y evi den ce. He d oe sn't have to prov e a ny thi ng he re. Th e Sta

te hasto prov

e h i s g ui l t an d they ha ve gotto do tha

t by proof b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. Right now he is presum

ed to be not guilty . The State has t o pr o ve him guil ty, i f they
are ca pa bl e of doi ng so, by pro of be yond a re aso nable do ubt . S o [ defend ant ] d oe sn't have to put o n an

y e vi dence of a ny kind ." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) The court then

ad dr es se d t he p rinc iple o f Ru le 4 31 (b )( 4) , t hat de fend ant wa s no t re qu ire d t o t es t ify and that if he ch

ose not to test if

y, i t co uld not be held against him. The co ur t went on t o inst ru ct t he
ven ire on the di

ff erent types of

evi dence: "In any even t, eviden ce is presented duri

ng the course of the trial

in several different
wa y s. Most c om

monl y , i t's f rom testi mony f rom th e wi tnes s stan d. Occ asi onal l y , there are what are calle d stipul

ations wh ere the parties agree that some thin g is evi dence. *** An d, f i na l l y , som eti mes exh i bi ts that ar e intr od uce d int o e vidence dur ingthe cou rse of the tri al ." The jury was cl early in struct ed that de f

endan t di d not need to do an

y thi ng;that the

re are different typesof e vidence , w ith t est imony being t he mos t co mmon; and t hat defend ant did n ot need to pr es en t evi dence of a ny kind . On thi s record, despite the trial court 's f ai lure t o qu es ti on

th e prospe cti ve j urors on t he pr inciple tha t defend ant was not re quir ed t o p re sent evidenc e, defend antNo. 2-- 08--0889

-11-

hasnot demonstrated t hat t he jur y was likely to believe t hat he wa s re quir ed t o p re sent evi dence other t ha n t es t imo ny. Furtherm ore, t he t r ia lcou

rt here i n str uc ted th e j ur y , a t th e c l ose

of trial an d b ef orei ts deliber at ions be ga n, t ha t de fen da nt wa s no t r eq uir ed t o pr o ve his in nocence. A

lthough the tri al

court
ca nn ot cur e its Rule 4 31( b) error by gi vi ng jury instruct ions at the end of trial (see Zehr , 103 Ill . 2d at 477 (jur y instr uct ion will have "l i ttl e cur ati v e e f f ect" if a juro r ha s a p re

judice) ), suc h instr uct ions
can am eliorate any

pot entia l un fai rness resul

ting f rom the error (see People v . Glas per , 234 Ill . 2d 173, 201 (2009) (holdi

ng no ev ide nce of jury b ias was sh

own, espe ci al ly

wher e j ur

y wa s b oth ad mo nis hed

and i nstruc ted)). We also note t hat the j ury acqui tt ed defe ndan t o f two of the three off enses fo r whi chhe wa s t r ied
. Ha d t he jury be en bia se d, t his r es ul t wo ul d h av e b ee n u nlik ely. Ac co r di ng ly, defen

dant has n ot establ is hed that hi s righ

t t o a fai r and i mpa rtial jury was compromised. Defend ant ur ges us t o fo llow o ur re cent hold ing in Bla ir and re ve rse his co nvictio n. Defend ant asse rt s t hat ou r ho ldingthere was tha t a v i ol ati on of Rul e 4 31(

b)i s p l ai n e rror impact ing a de fendant 's right to a f

ai r an d i m pa rti al j ury an d, th us , i s n ot subj ect t o a harml ess-erro r analy sis. Durin g oral argum

ent, defen dant too k the positi on that t he trial cou rt' s f ai l ur e to f ul l y com pl y wi th Rule 4 31( b) c ons t itu t ed s t ru ct ur al err or and is therefore per se reversi

bl e un der Bla ir . We di sagree wit h defend ant 's st at ement of o ur hold ing in Bla ir
. In Bla ir , whi lethe trial

court to ld the e

ntire v eni re about all

four of the Zehr pr inc iple s, it fai le d to question al

l of the prosp ecti

ve j urors about all

of the Zehr pri

nc i ples. Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 473, 47 8. Vo ir di

re was conduct ed in

three panels. Bla ir , 395 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 472. The tri al

court questioned

the mem be rs of all three pan

el s about the prin

ci ple contain ed i n Rul e 431(b)(2)--that t he Sta te be ars th

e burden of proof b ey

ond a reas onab l e doubt. Bla ir , 3 95 I ll. App. 3d a t 473 -7 5. TheNo. 2-- 08--0889

-12-

trial co ur t did no t que st ion t he first pane l abou t any of t he ot her three Zehr pri nc i ples. Bla ir , 39 5 I ll. App. 3d at 473-74. T he trial court questioned the s econd panel a bou t its u nder st anding o f the prin ci ple s in Rul es 431(b)(3) an d ( b) ( 4) an d it s a cc ep t an ce o f t he pr inc iple in Rul e 431 (b)(1 ). Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 474-75. The third pan el was addi tional ly questioned

ab o ut t he pr inc iple in Ru le 431(b)(1) and i

ts understand

i ng of the pri nc i ples i n R ules 4 31(b )(3) an

d (b )(4). Bla ir , 39 5 I ll. App. 3d at 47 5. The

def endan t testi f i ed. Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 467. Our analysis in Bla ir

centered on the f

acts and ci rcumstances of that case. A lthough we

noted t he "mand ato ry l

anguage of amen

ded Rule 431(b)" ( Bla ir , 3 95 I ll. App. 3d a t 478 ) a nd t he r ece nt "t re nd of author ity" ( Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 481 , c iting ca se s h

ol di ng tha t a R ule 4 31( b)vi ol ati on is rev ers i bl e p l ai n e rror n ot am en ab l e to harm

l es s- err orre view) , ha d t hat been d ispo sitive o ur an alys is of the na ture of the error wo uld h

ave b een superfl uous. We focused on the f irst pan el , from wh

ic h
seven of the seated j urors were ultim ately chosen, an

d exa mi ned the n ature of the error at issue
. Bla ir , 39 5 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 4 74 , 47 8. W

e p oi n ted out th at the t rial co ur t failed t o a sk a ll of the pr os pec t ivejurors about all of the Zehr pri

n ci pl es , but f oun d i t "[ m]ore si gn i f i ca n t [ that] t he t rial court fai le d t o a sk a major ity o f the jurors whether they understood and accepted three of the four Zehr princi

ples." Bla ir , 395 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 478. Under those f

acts, we obs erv

ed tha t the pur pos e of
vo ir di re -- t o a llow t he pa rt ies and the c ourt to determi ne if an y prospecti

ve j uror had any

particular bias or pr ejudice
-- was not fulfi lled given "t he manner in which vo ir di re wascond

ucted." Bla ir , 395 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 47 9. We r ev er se d a nd r ema nd ed , co nc lud ing t ha t t he t r ial c our t 's f ailu r e t o fully
co mply wi th the

mandate of

Rul e 431 (b) wi

th res pect to a m

aj ority of the em

pan eled j urors "c om prom i se d def en da n t' s r i gh t to a fai r and i mpa rtial j ury [ci tati ons ] an d i m pa cte d the i

nte gri ty of the judi cial

pro cess [citation]." Bla ir , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 482.No. 2-- 08--0889

4 The defend ant in Bla ir

did , h o we ver , t es t ify in his o wn b eha lf.

-13- De sp i te our aff irm ance h ere and reversal

in Bla ir , o ur hold ingin the p re sent cas e is co nsist ent wi th ou r ho lding in Bla ir , b ec au se of th e d i f f eren ce i n th e f acts and ci

rcum stan ces . Here, in contrast to Bla ir , a major ity o f the jurors was questioned about most of the Zehr pri nc i ples--th ree of the f our. Ad di t io na lly, one of the j urors was questioned ab out all f our of the Zehr prin

ci ple s i n the presen

ce of t he o t her juro rs. Fur t her mor e, t he t rial co ur t 's er ro r in Bla ir was even mo re egr egio us be cau se t he j urors t he r e w er e n o t qu es t io ne d a bo ut t he be dr o ck pr inc iple of the pre su m ption of inno cenc e and t he prin ci ple that t he def

endan t was not required to pr esen t eviden ce-- a p r inc iple wit h sp ec ific appl i ca ti on t o t he de fendant 's ca se be cau se he did no t pr ese nt evi dence. 4 Under t hos e fact s, t he purpo se o f vo ir di

re was not achieve d bec aus e t her e wa s no way to deter m

i ne whether a

ny j uror harbored a bias w ith r esp ect t o e ither of t hos e pr inciples. T hus, in Bla ir , we concl uded t h at the defend ant 's ri ght to a f

ai r an d i m partial j ury wascom prom i sed . Wh ere as h ere, the only

omi tt ed pr inc iple (th at d ef

en da nt wasnot required t o p re sent evidenc e) was of no co nseq uenc e t o d efenda nt 's trial because he di d present evi

dence. Al though we di stin

guis h rather t han r ely on Bla ir , w e ad dr ess t he St at e's a rg ument that we sho uld not re ly on Bla ir

be ca us e it fo llo we d t he t r en d o f aut ho r it y no w called int o q ues t ion by t he
va ca ti on o f Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , 389 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 1 ( 2009) , vacated , 23 3 I ll. 2d 5 65 ( 200 9) (d enying leave to ap

pe al an d i n str uc ti n g th e a pp el l ate cou rt t o re co nsid er in light o f Glasper ). Since
com pl eti on of the bri

efi ng i n t he inst an t ca se , ho we ve r , t he Fir st Dis t r ict r eis su ed it s o pin io n in A nd ers on , whi

ch i s subs tantial ly the sam e as the va

cated version. See Peop l e v . A nd ers on , No
. 1--07--1768, slip op. at 18 (March 29, 2010) ("The Glasper ha rmles s e rr o ran alys is is n ot ap propri ate under the f

acts of thi s case" ). Th eref ore , the S tate ' s c on cern

i s m oot.No. 2-- 08--0889

-14-

Fin ally, we observe that our holdi ng i s consi stent with our more recent pronoun cem en t in Schaef er . In Schaef

er , we appli

ed pl ai n-e rr or analysis and r elied o n Bla ir t o r ever se a nd r emand wh erethe tri

al court f ail ed to f ull y com pl y wi th Ru l e 431 (b). Schaef

er , 398 Ill . App. 3d

at 969 . T he trial cour t t old and questioned the veni re about the princi

ples i n Ru l es 4 31(b )(1) and (b)(2), but nei ther to ld n or questioned prospective jurors about the prin ci ple s i n Rul es 431(b)(3) and (b )(4) (t hat t he de f en da n t wa s n ot re qui re d to pre se

n t ev i den ce an d th at th e def en da n t' s dec i si on n ot to te sti

f y could not b e held aga

i nst hi m , resp ecti

ve l y ). Schaef er , 398 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 964-65, 9 67. We n

ot ed that the tri al cou rt' s error wasmor e egregious t han in Bla ir , p ar t icular ly because in Schaef er t he de fen da nt did not pres en

t evi den ce or tes tif

y . Schaef er , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 972. We also observed that t he t rial co ur t failed t o e ven inst ru ct t he jur y at t he close of evi dence, b efore i

t began del

ib erating, that the def

endan t's f ail ure to testi f

y could not b e held aga

i nst hi m . Schaef

er , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 972. The fac t s a nd c irc ums t anc es o f Schaef erar e eve n mor e differe nt fr o m t he pr es en t ca se t ha n is Bla ir
. Thu s, o ur hold ing her e is co nsist ent wit h Schaef er . We de cl i n e def en da n t' s i n v i tation to concl

ude that all

Rul e 431(b) vi

olations are structur al
errors re quir ing aut omat ic reve rsa l. The analyses in Bla ir and Schaef

er do not s upp or t t he de term i na ti on t hat such

errors a re structural

errors re qui

ri ng a utoma tic reversa l , an d o ur su pr eme courthas y

et t o addr ess the issue. Because defend ant failed t o d emons t ra t e t hat t he t rial co ur t 's err or compromised

h i s r i gh t to a fai r and i mpa rtial jury , he has not shown that the fai

rness of hi s trial was se ve r ely threatened, and theref

ore he hasno t de mo nst r at ed t ha t r ev er sible pla in error o ccurred. See Hopp , 209 Ill . 2dat 12 ( unde r t he do ct rine of p lain err or , t he de fendant bear s t he bur den o f show ing
a severe threat to t he f

ai rness of the trial ). Accordin

gly , defen dant hasno t o ve r co me h is f orfe i ture .No. 2-- 08--0889

-15-

See Na y l or , 229 Ill . 2d at 593 (" W h en a def en da n t f ai l s to est ablish plain err or , t he r esu lt is t hat t he 'procedural def

aul t must be h

onored' "), quot in

g Keene , 169 Ill . 2d at 17. Fo rt he r ea so ns gi ve n, we af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f D u P ag e C o un t y. Af fi rmed. McL AR EN an d HUTCHINSO

N, JJ ., conc

ur.