SIXTH D IVISI ON March 4, 2011 No. 1-09- 0517 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Coo k C oun ty ) v. ) 06 CR 25180 ) ALEXANDER TAYLOR, ) Ho no r ab le ) Marcus R. Salone, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JUS TI CE ROB ER T E . G ORD ON d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. JUS TI CE S CAH ILL and M cBR ID E c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Fol l owi ng a j ury tri al , de f en da nt A l exan der Ta y l or, a n A f rica n- A meri ca n, wa s c onv

i cte d of ag gr av at ed ba t t er y o f a s en io rcit ize n; a gg r av at ed ba t t er y t o an emp lo yee o f a h o sp it al e ng ag ed in t he pe r fo rman ce o f he rdu t ies an d a gg r av at ed ba t t er y t ha t kn o win gly c au se d h er gr ea t bo dily har m. Aft er a he ar ing t o re co nsid er de fend ant ’s init ial se nt enc e o f t hr ee co ncu rr ent t er ms o f 5 years’ i mpri sonment, the tr ial

cour t sentenced defendant to three co ncurrent t erms of 3 y ears’ impr iso nme nt in t he I llino is D ep ar t men t o f Co rr ec t io ns, wit h a cr ed it o f 85 0 d ays fo rt ime considered served. On

appeal , defen

dant seeks reversal

of his convi

ctions, cl ai mi ng that the trial court : (1) fai

le d to conduct a proper fit ne ss he ar ing an d, as a r es ult , ab us ed it s d isc r et io n in fi ndi ng def endan t fi t t o stand trial ; (2) erred and v iolated Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U .S. 79 (19 86), when t he St at e exe rc ised t wo of it s pe re mpt or y challenges t o p ur po sefully exclude t wo AfricanAm erican veni repeopl e f rom th e j ury ; (3)f

ail ed to com

pl y wi th the mandate of

Supreme CourtNo. 1-09- 0517

2

Ru l e 4 31 (b ) (I l l . S. Ct. R. 43 1(b ) (e f f . M ay 1, 2 00 7) ); an

d ( 4) i m prope rl y al l owe d th e S tate to pr es en t th e te sti mon y of on e of th e v i cti m ’s med i ca l ph y si ci ans b ec au se : (a

) the S tate

f ai l ed to di scl ose “ a statem

en t of the doctor’s q

ual i f i cations” as a n expe rt in vi ola tion of Su prem e Court Rule 4 12 ( Ill. S . C t . R . 4 12 ( eff. Ma r. 1, 200 1) ); ( b) t he medica l physician’s t est imony conc er ning “the victim’s p sycho log ical injuries wa s irr elevant ”; ( c) t he medica l physician’s t est imony “co nt ained inad missibl

e hea rsa y conc er ning medicat ions p re scr ibed by a ps ychiatr ist a nd
neuro logist”; and (d ) t he St ate fai led to lay a pro per fou ndation for the medical phy sician’s t es t imo ny “c o nc er ning t he med ica t io ns p r es cr ibe d t o [ t he ] vic t im.” We affir m. I. BACKG

ROUND On Novem be r 11 , 20 06, de f

en da nt wasch arg ed by i nd i ctm en t wi th th ree cou nts of aggravated battery: one count of aggravated battery of Leonard Gi le s, a 60-yea

r old hospi

tal securi ty superv is or, pur suant to section 12-4.6(a) o f the C rim in al Code of 1961 (Code) (720 IL CS 5/1 2-4 .6( a) (W es t 200 6)) (ag gra va ted ba ttery of a s en i or ci tizen) ; a nd two c oun

ts of aggravated battery of Vi

da Catall a, a hospi tal staf f n urse, pursuant to section 12-4(b)(7) (720 ILC S 5 /1 2- 4( b)( 7) (Wes t 200 6) ) ( agg ra vat ed ba t t er y to hos pit al per so nnel enga ged in the performa nce of h er duties) an

d section 12-4(a) (720 ILCS 5/12-4(a) (West 2006)) (aggravated ba ttery tha t knowi ngl y ca us ed gre at b odi

l y ha rm ). Th e c ha rge s a ros e f rom a p hy si cal al terc ati on that occurr ed whi

le defen dant was a patie

nt in a psy chi atric uni t o f the Lin

coln Park Hospital where Gi le s and Ca

tall a were em

ploy ed. On De cem b er 5, 2 00 6, t

h e C ook C oun

ty pu b l i c def en der’ s of f i ce wa s a pp oi n ted to repres en t de f en da nt. A n ass i sta nt p ub l i c def en der re que ste d a

be ha vi oral cl i ni cal exam i na ti onNo. 1-09- 0517

3

( BC X) fo rde fen da nt t o de t er mine h is fit ne ss t o st an d t r ial be ca us e d efe nd an t wa s a ps ychia t r ic patient at t he tim

e of the offenses. On March

12, 2007, a fi

tness he arin

g was hel d and Dr. Susan M essi

na, a cl in ic al ps ycho lo gis t emp lo yed by t he F o re nsic Clinica l Se rv ice s ( FCS ), wa s t he o nly wit nes s t o t es t ify
co ncer ning defend ant ’s fitne ss. Dr . Me ssina t est ifi ed t hat she w as a licensed psychiat rist , a nd t he parties sti pula ted to her qual

if ic ations as

an ex pert. Dr. Messi

na testif ie d that she i

nterviewed defen dant on Decem

ber 11, 2006, and Feb

ruary 8, 2007. She testif

ie d that she al so revi ewed defen dant’s m edi cal and arrest records. She further testif ie d that she conducted a m ental status examinat ion o f defend ant and o pined t hat defend ant demo nst ra t ed a n unde rst anding o f the charges agai nst hi m , the l egal procee di ngs , and the

role s of court pers onnel
. Dr. Messi na also test if

ie d that defenda

nt would often b ecome “

tangenti al ” i

n hi s responses and “ focus *** on h

is own vi ctim iz ation.” She testif

ie d that defenda

nt had a “ dis

to rted percept ion based on hi

s paranoia and suspiciousness an d distrust. ” Based on tho se observations, she opi ned, wi thin a reasonabl

e degree of m

edi cal and psy chi atric certain

ty, that defen

dant was not fi t t o stand trial

because he would be un

abl e to assist counsel

in hi s def ense. She further opi n ed th at “ wi th appr opri ate

cl i n i ca l atte n ti on an d m ed i ca ti on ” def en da n t cou l d b e restore d to fi tness f or t rial withi n one y ear. Based on Dr. Messi

na’s testim ony, the tria

l c ourt entered an ord er fi ndi ng defen dant unfi t t o st and trial an

d or dered defendant to be “conf in ed in the least constricti ve secure i

n-patien t sett in g by the Departmen

t o f Hum an Servi ces.” At a status hearin

g on Septembe

r 24, 2007, t he State inform ed the trial

court that it had
re ceived a ps ychiatr ist’ s wr itt en r epo rt co ncer ning defend ant ’s fitne ss t o s t and t rial fro m theNo. 1-09- 0517

4

Chest er Ment al Hea lth Ce nt er wher e de fendant was co nfined. T he St at e did no t mentio n who wrot e the report and i

t was not incl

uded i n the record. Accordin

g to the Stat e, the report stated th at def en da n t wa s a b l e to u n ders tan d th e n atu reof th e ch arge s a

gai n st h i m an d w oul d b e a b l e to cooperat e i

n hi s def ense. The

Stat e al so in

form ed the trial

court that a psych

ia trist from F CS was pr ep ar ed t o ex amine de fen da nt o n S ep t emb er 25 , 20 07 , an d p r o vid e a n o pin io n c o nc er ning his fitness t o s t and t rial. T he t rial co ur t instr uct ed d efense co unse l that a fitne ss r est or at ion hea ring
wa s n ec es sa ry i f de f en da nt wasf oun d f i t to sta nd tri al an d s et a da te f or a f i tne ss res torati on heari ng to be hel

d on Novem

ber 7, 2007. On S ept ember 2 6, 200 7, Dr . N ishad N adk ar ni, an FC S st aff psychiat rist , su bmitt ed t o t he t r ial c o ur t a w r it t en ev alu at io n c o nc er ning his o pin io n o n d efe nd an t ’s fit ne ss t o st an d t r ial. I n his
wr itt en eva luat ion, Dr . N adk ar ni sta t ed t hat he eva luat ed d efenda nt on S ept ember 2 5, 200 7, and opine d that defenda

nt man if ested “sev

ere antis ocial

and b orderli

ne ch aracter pathology.” He opined that defendant demonstrat ed to hi m “an adequate underst andi ng of the charges agains

t hi m, an d adequate comprehen

si on of the nature of courtro om proceedin gs and the rol es of v

arious
cour tro om personnel.” He further opined that defendant demonstrat ed a capacity to assist
co un se l in his de fen se , fo un d n o ev ide nc e t ha t he su ffer ed fr o m ad ve r se effe ct s fr o m his
medi ca ti on r eg i men tha t woul d i m pai r hi s f i tne ss , an d opi ne d that “ an

y obs erv ati ons of
no nc o o pe r at ivit y ** * s ho uld be int er pr et ed as vo lit io na l o n his pa r t . ” D r . Na dk ar ni o pin ed , wit hin
a rea son ab l e deg re e of med i ca l an d p sy ch i atr i c c er tai n ty , that def

en da n t “ i s c ur re n tl y re sto re d to fi tness to stand trial, wi

th medi cation.” He stated that defenda nt’s m edi cation regi

me n consisted of Se roquel, an an tip sy chotic, a nd D epak ote, a m ood stabi l izer.No. 1-09- 0517

5

On Novem

ber 7, 2007, defen

se counsel

in form ed the trial

court that Dr. Nadkarni was
un av ai l ab l e to te sti

f y at th e f i tn es s restora

ti on h ea ri n g, a n d th e tr i al cou rt c on ti n ue d th e m atte r to Decem ber 3, 2007. On that date, Dr. Nadkarni di d not t estif

y a nd the record is

not clear whether he ev en appeared or provided reasons f or his f ai lure to testify

. Defense counsel

then requested t hat a ps ychiatr ist o t her t han Dr . N adk ar ni reeva luat e de fendant co ncer ning his fitness t o s t and tria l . The tria l court ordered

def endan t to be reev

al uated b y an FC S psy chi atri st other than

Dr. Nadkarni and conti nued the m

atter to January

7, 2008. On Ja nuar y 7, 2 008 , D r. Andr ew Ku lik, an FC S fo re nsic psycho log ist, submitt ed t o t he t r ial c o ur t a w r it t en ev alu at io n c o nc er ning his o pin io n o n d efe nd an t ’s fit ne ss t o st an d t r ial. I n his
wr itt en eva luat ion, Dr . Ku lik sta t ed t hat he eva luat ed d efenda nt on D ece mber 1 4, 200 7, and opi ne d tha t def endan t dem onstra ted tha t he “i s cogn

izan t of h i s ch arge[ s], un

derstand s the

na ture
an d p ur po se o f leg al p r o ce ed ing s, an d s ho ws t he ab ilit y t o co o pe r at e w it h c o un se l in his de fen se if he so choos es .” H e al so op i ne d that d ef

en da nt wasres pon di ng we l l to hi s m edi ca ti on r eg i men of Seroq ue l an d D ep ak ote, an d n ot ex perien ci n g a n y si de ef f ects th at woul d i m pai r h i s f i tn es s to stan d tri al
. Dr. Kulik a

ls o opined i

n hi s wri tt en ev al uation that, after reviewi

ng “ the avai la ble records and i nf ormation” h

e obtain ed durin g hi s i nterview, he f

ound “n o repo rt o r documentation” tha t indicat ed d efenda nt expe rience d any sympt oms o f menta l disease or defec t which wo uld have
ca us ed him “t o lac k t he su bst an t ial c ap ac it y t o ap pr ec iat e t he cr iminalit y o f his c o nd uc t at t he t ime
o f t he alle ge d o ffen se . ” D r . Ku lik o pin ed , wit hin a r ea so na ble de gr ee o f med ica l an d p syc hia t r ic
certai nty , th at d ef en da nt “ i s f i t to sta nd tri al wi th m edi ca ti on, *** wa s l

eg al l y sa ne at the ti me ofNo. 1-09- 0517

6

the alle ged off

ense, *** an

d had the ab il

ity to understand Miranda [ wa rning s] at t he t ime o f his
arrest.” Defe

nse couns el

in form ed the trial

court that t he pub li

c defe nder’s of fi ce was h iri ng a pri v ate psy ch i atr i st to ev al ua te def en da n t’s f i tn es s to sta

n d tri al an d r eq ue ste d a con ti n ua n ce to obt ain the private psychiatrist’s e valuation and have that medical pro vider review Dr. Kulik’s written eval

uation. The trial

court granted defen

se counsel ’s request f

or a continuanc e. The matter was

conti nue d to May

6, 2008 , wh en

def en se c ouns el

i nf orme d the tria l court that de f endan t had be en ev al uated b y a pri va te psy chi atri st who agree d wi

th the opi ni on of Dr. Ku lik t ha t de fen da nt is fit t o st an d t r ial w it h me dic at io n. T he pr iva t e p syc hia t r ist ’s na me is no t in the reco rd and there is also no written evaluation i n the recor d from the private psy chiatrist concerni ng def endan t’s fi tness to stand trial. Def

ense couns el

then stated to the trial

court that she w ou ld be able t o s t ipulat e t o d efenda nt ’s fitne ss t o s t and t rial. T he St at e t hen su mmarized t he part ies’ stipulation as f

ollows: “THE STATE: Fi

tness wi th medi cation. The sti

pula tion would b e that [de f en da nt] wa s ori gi

na l l y se en by Dr. K ul i k ** * pu rs ua nt to c ourt order on De ce mbe r[ 3] , 20 07 , in o r de rt o r en de ran o pin io n r eg ar din g fit ne ss t o st an d t r ial, fi tness wi th meds , sani

ty an d abi li ty to understand Miranda [warn i ngs ]. Th e def en da nt wasf oun d by the doc tor wi

thi n a rea son ab l e degree

of
medi cal and psy chi atri c certai

nty that he was

f i t to stand trial

wi th m edi cation. Dr. Kul ik f ound he i s cogni

zant of hi s charge[s], unde

rstand[s] the nature and the l egal procee di ngs , showed the ab i l i

ty to coopera

te wi th counsel

i f he so ch ose.No. 1-09- 0517

7 Al though he has been

dia gnosed wi

th men tal i ll ness , he, at that t im

e, ap pe ar ed t o be fair ing we ll wit h his cu rr en t med ica t io n. At t ha t t ime his
medi cation wa s Ser

oquel , an an tip sy chotic, a nd [ Depa kote], a m

ood stabi l izer. The docto r al so o pi

n ed th e def en da n t wa s n ot ex perien ci n g a n y si de ef f ects at that t im

e from that medi cation. I bel

ie ve [def ense couns el ] asked Dr. Kul ik [ sic ] at t he r eq ue st o f t he Pu blic D efe nd er ’s Offic e t o ev alu at e t he de fen da nt as we ll,
and he wasi n c oncu rren ce m ost recentl

y wi th tha t sam e di agn osi s. DEFEN SE COU

NSEL: Correct.” Fo llowing t he pa rt ies’ st ipulat ion t o d efenda nt ’s fitne ss, t he t rial co ur t did no t make a ny or al or wr itt en findings whe t her defend ant was fit t o s t and t rial. T he pa rt ies t hen disc uss ed t he possibil ity of a plea off

er of tim e served b ecause, at that po in t in ti me , defen dant had serv

ed 561 days. The defend ant was offer ed t hre e year s’ impriso nment a nd t he t rial co ur t co nt inued t he
matter to June 2, 20 08. On Ju ne 2, 2 008 , de f

en da nt d ec l i ne d the p l ea

of f er a nd the tri al cou rt se t a tri al da te f or Jul y 14, 2008. On

that date, the trial

court continue d the trial

date to Septembe

r 9, 2008. On A ugust 6, 2008, defense c ounsel fi le d a m ot ion wi th the trial

court requestin

g a h ea ri n g to dete

rm i n e w h eth er de f en da n t cou l d k n owi n gl y an d v ol un tar i l y wai v e a n i n sa n i ty defense. In the m

ot ion, defense counsel stated t hat she bel iev ed that asserting an i

nsani ty defense and sel f-def ense woul d be i n def endan t’s best i nterest. Ho wever, af

ter discuss in

g the two defen ses wi th defen dant, she cl

ai me d that defenda

nt was adam

ant that he wanted to assert o nl y a sel f -def en se c l ai m .No. 1-09- 0517

8

The trial court hel d a heari ng on def ense couns el ’s m

ot ion on A

ugust 13, 2008. T he trial
cou rt e x pl ai n ed to th e def

en da n t th at i f h e a ss er ted onl y a s el f -d ef ense cl ai m an d w as f oun d g ui l ty of the charges that he could be sen t t o a penitentiary, whereas if h e asserted an insani

ty defense and he was able t o s how he wa s insane a t t he t ime of t he o ffense, or if he was fo und no t guilt y he would not be sen

t t o a peni

tentiary, but to another men tal he al th faci li ty. The f oll owing c oll

oquy took p l ac e b etw een

th e tr i al cou rt a n d def en da n t: “THE COURT: Mr. Tay

lor, do you understand wh at I’m say in g? DEFENDANT: I understand wh at you’re say

in g. THE COURT: Can y

ou expl ai n what you understand? DEFENDANT: I understand that if – i f – i f – THE COURT: If y

ou are found i

nsan e at the tim

e of the off

ense – DEFENDANT: If

I’m found to be i

nsan e. THE COURT: You may

be sen t t o – where are we talki

ng? DE FE ND AN T : I kn o w t he y se nt me t o – t he y sa id t he y se nd me t o E lgin [Mental Heal th Center], but they sen

t me to Chester [Mental He al th Center]. They almo st kille d me o ut t he r e. T he gu ar ds st r an gle d me
. T he y t o r e u p a ll my propert y. *** THE COURT: I know, you to ld m e about this b efore. DEFENDANT: It was crazy . I don’t want t o have to go t hrough that agai n. Pl us, I’m in nocent of thi s cri

me – TH E C OUR T: Te ll m

e wha t I just t ried t o e xplain t o yo u abo ut t heNo. 1-09- 0517

9

dif feren ce between a

n i nsan ity defen se – DEF END A

NT: I kn ow. Y ou s ai

d th at if I’ m f oun d gu i l ty by rea son of in sani ty I go out to one of those pl aces l ike a hospi tal. They said I [was] supposed to go t o Elgi

n l ast tim e. I didn ’t. I went t o Chester and they al most ki ll ed m e out there, you know what I’m say in g. TH E C OUR T: I a lso s aid t hat if y ou ’re fou nd gu ilty as cha rg ed, you might go where? DEFEN DA NT: The pen

i tentiary, but I’ m

not gui l ty, s o I’m goi ng to f i ght.” T he t r ial c o ur t fo un d t ha t de fen da nt ’s wa ive ro f his in sa nit y de fen se wa s g ive n k no win gly
an d v ol un tar i l y an d en tered a w ri tten ord er wi th th at f i n di n g. T h e tr i al cou rt s et a n ew trial da te of October 16, 2008. On Oc t obe r 1 6, 200 8, jury selec t ion beg an. Fo llowing t he sw ear ing in of t he venire , t he tria l court i nf orme d an d que sti oned

the v en i re of 22 pe opl e con

cern i ng c ertai n pr i nc i ples of l aw, nam el y: (1) that a def

endan t is presum

ed i nnocen t; (2) that he must be proven guil ty be yond a
re as o nab le d o ubt ; an d ( 3) t hat he is no t re qu ire d t o o ffer any e vide nce in his o wn b eha lf. However, the trial

court did n

ot in form the potential

jurors of a f

ourt h pri nci ple of law, nam

el y (4) that a defen

dant’s f ai lure to testify

in hi s own beh

al f can not be hel d agai nst hi m. The se f

our prin ci ple s are now comm

only known as the “

Zehr prin ci ple s.” See People v. Thompson , 23 8 I ll. 2d 598 (2010 ); People v. Hammonds , 399 Il l . Ap p. 3d 92 7, 946 ( 2010)
. W i th re sp ect to the f

i rs t th re e p ri n ci pl es of l aw , the tr

i al cou rt s tate d, i

n perti n en t pa rt: “[1 .] Unde r t he law t he de fendant is pre sumed t o be innoce nt of t heNo. 1-09- 0517

10

charges aga

in st hi m. Is there an

yone am ong you wh

o has any problem with that legal pro vi sion that the defendant is presum ed to be i nnocent of the charges against hi m? If so, pl ease state your obj ection n ow. There is n

o response. This p re sumpt ion r emains wit h t he de fendant t hro ugho ut ever y sta ge o f the tri al an d du ri ng your del i be rati on on the ve rdi ct a nd i t i s n ot ove rcom e u nl es s f rom all this evide nce in t his case you a re co nvinced be yond a re aso nable do ubt , t hat t he de fe nd an t is g ui lt y. [2 .] The St at e has t he bur den o f pro ving t he gu ilt o f the defend ant beyond
a rea sona bl e doubt. An

d this b urden rem ai ns on the State through

out the ca se. Are t her e any amo ng you who have a ny pro blems with t hat re quir ement of t he la w? That the State has the burden of provi ng the gui lt of the def

endan t bey ond a
reason ab l e doubt, an

d th i s b urden rem ai ns on th e Sta te th roug hou t the ca se ? If so, ple ase voice y

our exception at this

tim e. There i s no response. [3 .] The defend ant is not re quir ed t o p ro ve his innoc ence , no r is he
re quir ed t o p re sent any evidenc e o n his ow n behalf. H e may rely upo n t he pr esu mpt ion o f innocenc e. Again, is the re anyone among you w ho ha s any ex ce pt io n t o t ha t pr o visio n o f t he law ? I f so , mak e yo ur ex ce pt io n k no w a t t his tim e. There is n

o response.” Defens e co unse l did no t objec t t o t he t rial co ur t ’s inst ru ct ions o r it s qu est ioning o f the
ven ire. Fol lowi ng the trial

court ’s questionin

g of the ven

ire, the State requested t hat the trial
co ur t excu se ve nirep er so n A.T ., an Africa n-Amer ican, for cau se be cau se o f his arr est re co rd . T heNo. 1-09- 0517

11

trial cou rt d ec l i n ed to ex cu se h i m f or c au se an d th e S tate exercise d a

pere m ptor y ch al l en ge to ex cus e hi m . The State exercis ed a second perem pto ry ch alle nge agai nst ven ireperson V .W., an Af rican -Am erica n, who testif

ie d that she was em

ploy ed as a case

worker, at tended church regularl y, was unm arried, had no chi

ldren, and had n

ot been the vi ctim of a cri me . Bot h parties the n a gre ed on a nd se l ec ted the f i rs t pa ne l of j uror s w hi ch consiste d of

f our j uror s, th

ree of wh om wer e Africa n-Amer ican. The State t hen

exercised i

ts third perem

pto ry ch alle nge agai nst ven ireperson L .H., an African- American, who t est ifi ed t hat she w or ks w ith childr en as a gr ou p wo rk er ’s aid. Afte r t he Stat e exercised a perem

pto ry ch alle nge agai nst her, def

ense couns el

rais ed a Batson cla im, arguin g that a prima facie Batson cl ai m h ad been establ is hed b ased on the State’s use of al l three of i ts peremptory cha

ll enges aga in st Af rican -Am erica ns. The f oll owing c oll

oquy too k pla

ce between the tri al

court and the State: “THE COURT: I agree [that three of the four of the j urors in the f irst pan el are Af rican -Am erica n], and i t is a cons ide

ration. Al

l of the chal le nges h ave b een aga inst Afr ican-Amer icans. Tha t ’s a c ons ider at ion also . And I t hink it is t he prim ary cons ide

ration to be addressed. And I will say as to Mr. T* **, I u nder st and it . I unde rst and a nd believe that t here i s a [race-]neutral b asi s f or chall engi ng Mr. T***. But as to Ms. H***, Ms. W***, an

argumen t might be m

ade wi thout chal le ngi ng these people, we would now have i

n a second pa

nel 3/4ths of that panel

ma y b e Af rican -Am erica nNo. 1-09- 0517

12

as wel l. A nd so I awai

t an expl anati on concerni

ng Ms. W *** and [Ms.] H***.
*** THE ST ATE: Okay. Wel l f irst of all, as far as the reaso n f or excusing these juro rs, t her e’s a n abund ance of p eo ple who wo rk in the c ase wo rk er field, t he soci al worker f i eld. W e hav e onl

y sev en perem ptorie s. We ca

n’ t stri ke ev ery soc i al wor ker. B ut p eop l e i

n th at f i el d * ** I w oul

d th i n k w oul d b e sy m pa th eti c to th e def ense . ** * [ T]h

i s is a ca se th at i n v ol v ed som eon e w h o wa s a pa ti en t at a hosp i tal , be i ng c ared f or at a hos

pi tal whi l e he was

adm i tted. So the pri

mary reason i s people i

n the social

work fi el d. Ms. H*** is

a y oung woman

who works in t ha t field t ha t se ems like she wo uld be symp at he t ic t o a p at ien t in aho sp it al. As far a s Ms. W*** , she is a cas e wo rk er in the s ame field t hat wo uld be sy m path eti c wi

th the i ssues i n th i s ca se.” In r esp ons e, defens e co unse l sta t ed t hat t he St at e ac cep t ed ve nirep er so n E. V. , a nonAf rican -Am erica n, who testif

ie d that she has

been a caseworker for the Departmen t o f Hum an Ser vices fo r 2 2 year s, is mar ried t o a cas ewo rk er in a sup er visor y pos itio n, ha s fou r c hildren, and had b een a v

ictim of sex ual abuse as a chi ld a nd a v ic tim of domestic vi

olen ce. Defen se counsel also st at ed t hat t he St at e ac cep t ed ve nirep er so n D. J., a no n-Africa n-Amer ican, whom def ense counsel argued could be considered a caseworker because she testifi ed that she i s empl

oyed as a supervisor with the Il

li nois Acti on for Chi

ldren, which sub sidiz es chi ld c are. The State asserted t hat E.V. and D.J. were empl oyed i n superv is ory positions “as

opposed to work in g in the field.” Defen

se counsel responded that E.V. had test if ied that she was aNo. 1-09- 0517

13

cas eworker and tha

t her h usb and was

a ca seworker i

n a supe rvisory posi tion . The tria l court stat ed as foll

ows: “TH E C OUR T: Fro m what I k now of t he ca se, I d on’ t kno w t hat one cul ture wo uld b e predis

posed. *** [I]t ’s n

ot a poli ce case, so I don’t know that one cul ture wo uld b e m

ore suited for the def

ense case or the prosecut ion c ase, regar di ng w ha t I exp ect the

testi mony to be.” The trial court found that the State reasons for chal le ngi ng V.W. an

d L.H. were raceneutral reas ons and al

lowed the ch

alle nges over def

ense couns el ’s obj ections. The pa rties then select ed t he se co nd pa nel of jur or s, w hich co nsist ed o f thr ee jur or s. E .V . w as no t select ed t o t he jury, bu t D. J. w as se lect ed t o t he jur y. A sec ond po ol o f venirep er so ns we re swo rn in and in terviewe d and an

ot her 7 ven

irepersons

were selected to the jury , for a to tal of 12 j urors and 2 al terna tes. The ratio of Af

ri can -Am erican j ury pan el mem bers to non-Af

ri can -Am erican j ury pa n el mem b er s is n ot cl ea r f rom th e rec ord , nor i s th

at rati o disc us se d i n th e p ar ti es ’ a pp el l ate brief s. At t r ial, t he St at e c alle d fiv e w it ne ss es in it s c as e- in- ch ief. T he wit ne ss es inc lud ed Ca t alla and G iles, t he vict ims; Osar os emwen E rha bor , a co unse lor in the p sychiat ric u nit; Y vonne Arr ingt on, t he cha rg e nur se in t he ps ychiatr ic unit ; and D r. Salu d Ma rt inez, Cat alla’s t re at ing
medi cal phy sician . Cat alla te st ifi

ed t hat on O ct obe r 2 3, 200 6 she was wo rk ing as a st aff nurs e dist ribut ing medicat ion t o p at ients in the p sychiat ric u nit o f Lincoln Pa rk Ho spit al. S he de scr ibed t he ps y ch i atri c u ni t asbe i ng di vi de d i nto two wi

ng s, a “ gene ral ca re” wi ng , wh i ch sh e te sti f i ed wa s f orNo. 1-09- 0517

14

pati en ts requ i ri ng “ l ess supe rvision,” a

nd a “s peci al care ” wi ng f or pati en ts requ i ri ng “ more supervisi on.” She testif

ie d that on t hat day

she was assi gned to the general

care wi ng an d heard a
comm ot ion i n the speci

al care wi ng. Cata ll a te stified t hat she t hen heard a “co de gr ay” announced o ver t he psychi atr ic uni t’s lo ud sp ea ke r s. Sh e t es t ified t ha t a c o de gr ay is a w ar ning t o un it ’s st aff me mbe r s t ha t a p syc hia t r ic pa t ien t is “o ut o f co nt r o l” a ndt ha t all a va ilable st aff me mbe r s in t ha t un it mus t r es po nd t o as sis t in
re st ra ining or sec luding t he pa t ient fr om o t her pat ients . S he t est ifi ed t hat , a fte r she hear d t he
anno unce ment, she left t he ge ner al car e wing a nd ent er ed t he sp ecial ca re wing, wher e she obs er ved d efenda nt t alking t o his mo t her on a hos pit al te lepho ne loc at ed in a ha llway. She test if ied that defendant appeared “very an gry, very h

ost il e, t ot all y out o f contro l.” She al so test if ied that she heard defendan t using racial

slurs and threatenin

g staff m emb ers. Ca tal l a te sti f i ed th at oth er staf f mem b er s res pon de d to th e c ode gr ay an n oun cemen t, including Ar ringt on, Er habo r, and G iles. Ca t alla te st ifi ed t hat she a t t empt ed t o t alk wit h defend ant to calm him , but defendant co ntinued t o sho ut into t he telepho ne, “they want t o give me a shot !” She testif ie d that she had obs erved def endan t shouting f

or appro xi

ma tely 10 to 15 mi

nutes, but tha t an othe r, u nn am ed , staf f mem be r i nf orm ed he r th at d ef en da nt h ad be en sh outi ng f or approx i matel y one h our. Catall a testif ie d that she then dev

is ed a pl an to phy si cally

move defen dant in to a “qui et ro om” t o s eclud e de fendant fro m the o t her pat ients in the s pec ial care unit . S he t est ifi ed t hat she pla nne d to use a three- to four-inch thick twi n-si zed m attr ess as a s

hiel d so that she and the other st aff members co uld co me clos e eno ugh t o d efenda nt t o immobilize him by gr abbing his ar ms andNo. 1-09- 0517

15

leg s a nd t he n mo ve him int o t he qu iet r o o m. Ca t alla t es t ified t ha t she , Ar r ing t o n a nd Gile s he ld the ma tt ress whi le Erhabor wal

ked alongside of them

as they approached def

endan t. She test if

ie d t hat she w as u nclear as t o w hat happ ened aft er t hey came c lose t o d efenda nt beca use t he next t hing she r eme mbe r ed wa s t ha t she wo ke up in t he ho sp it al’ s e mer ge nc y ro o m. The St at e t hen o ffered into evidenc e t hre e pho t og ra phs o f Cat alla, w itho ut objec t ion. The t r ial c o ur t r ec eiv ed t he ph o t o gr ap hs in t o ev ide nc e a nd t he y we r e p ub lishe d t o t he jur y. C at alla t est ifi ed a s a fo unda t ion t hat t he t hre e pho t og ra phs w er e t ake n on O ct obe r 2 4, 200 6, at t he hosp i tal and acc uratel y depi cted the i nj uries to he

r f ace on tha t date. Giles t est ifi

ed t hat he r esp ond ed t o t he co de g ra y annou ncement and o bser ved d efenda nt t alking o n a t elepho ne at t he end of a hallway and sho ut ing at st aff members. He t est ifi ed t hat t he staff me mb ers told hi

m that they

pla nne d to use a m

attr ess as a s

hiel d in order t o appro ach def endan t. Giles t est ifi

ed t hat he as sist ed t he st aff members in ap pr oa ching de fendant wit h t he mattress. He test if

ied that when they drew near, defendan t “bolted o ut” fro m b ehi

nd the mattress
an d s truck h i m twicei n th e h ead. H e te sti

f i ed de f en da nt “ kn ocked” h i m an d C atal l a to the f

l oor and tha t he b eca me un cons cious af

ter he f el l to the f l oor. The State o ff

ered in to evi dence f our phot ographs of Gi

le s, without objection. The trial court recei

ved the ph

ot ographs i

nto evide nce an d they were publ

is hed to the jury . Gil

es testif ie d as a f oundation that the three photogr aphs were taken on October 23, 2006, at the Chi cago poli ce department an

d accurately

depi cted the in

juri es to his f ace on that date. Erh ab or te sti f i ed th at h e acc om pa n i ed th e staf f mem b er s w h o ap proach ed de f en da n t wi thNo. 1-09- 0517

16

t he mat t r es s. He t es t ified t ha t as t he y ap pr o ac he d, de fen da nt st ruc k C at alla an d G iles wit h his hands and fist s. H e t est ifi ed t hat defend ant st ru ck C at alla “multiple t imes.” H e t est ifi ed t hat she then f ell to the fl

oor and appeared “

unresponsi

ve.” Erhab or also testif

ie d that defenda

nt struck Gil es m ulti ple tim es and Gi le s al so fel

l to the fl oor . He further testif

ie d that defenda

nt started kicki ng C atal l a an d Gi l es i n the f ace as they l ay on the f l oor. Arr ingt on t est ifi

ed t hat she a cco mpanied t he st aff members w ho a ppr oa ched defend ant wit h t he mat t re ss. She t est ifi ed t hat defend ant came a ro und t he o t her side o f the matt re ss and struck Catalla and Gi

le s until they

fel l to the fl oor . She testif

ie d both of them

appeared unconsci ous and def

endan t began “ kic kin g and stompi

ng them .” She testif

ie d that she threw h er se l f ov er Ca tal l a’ s b ody an d s crea med f or d ef en da n t to s top. She te sti

f i ed th at “ [a ]f ter a p oi n t, [def endan t] ju st f roze i n h i s tracks,” l

ooked aroun

d, an d then ra n to the other en

d of the h al l way . She test if ied that defendant was later restr ain ed by police off

icers. Wh en the State call

ed Dr. Salud Marti

nez as a witne ss, def

ense couns el

requested a si debar conf

erence. At the si

debar conf

erence, def

ense couns el

in form ed the trial

judge that t hey had not rec eiv

ed Dr. Mar tinez’s curriculum vitae (C V) as th ey h ad pr ev i ous l y re qu ested . Pr

i or to tria l , def endan t had f i l ed a “ Moti on f or Di scovery

” requ esti ng th e State to di scl

ose, inter al

ia , a l i st of al l sta tem en ts b y pers ons wh om the State may cal l asa w i tne ss , an d “ [a] ny rep orts or statem en t of ex perts m ade i n c onnection wi

th the particul ar ca se.” The State res ponde d tha

t Dr. Mar t inez wa s no t go ing t o p ro vide an e xper t op inion, o nly the medica l tes t imony of a t re at ing “medical do ct or ” co ncer ning t he injuries C at alla sust ained a nd t he co ur se o f her t re at ment. The t rial co ur t allowe d Dr . Ma rt inez t o t est ify ove r d efense co unse l’s objec t ion.No. 1-09- 0517

1 The rec ord

doe s n ot s tate wh eth er Dr . M ar ti n ez i s b oard c er

ti f i ed i n a s pe ci f i c s pe ci al ty of m edi ci ne. 17 Dr. Martinez testi fi

ed that she i s a “gen

eral practi tioner, fam

il y practice.” She testif

ie d that she graduated from the Uni versi ty of San ta To mas i

n the Phi li ppin es and di d her resi dency t r ain ing at Linc o ln P ar k H o sp it al. Sh e fu r t he rt es t ified t ha t she is lic en se d t o pr ac t ice med icine in Ill in ois an d is an attendi

ng phy si ci an at Li

ncol n Park Hospi

tal where she h

as a pri vate practice. 1 Dr . Ma rt inez t est ifi

ed t hat Cat alla had be en her pat ient s ince 20 02. She t est ifi ed t hat t he hospi tal’s em ergency roo m s taff contacted her at her home on the ev eni ng of October 23, 2006, to in form her that Catall

a’s m edi cal condi tion requi red admi tt ance to the hospital . She testif ie d th at s h e i n str uc ted th e emergen cy

room staf f to ad m i t Ca tal l a a n d a rri v ed th e f oll owi n g day to ex am i ne her. Dr . Ma r t ine z t es t ified , wit ho ut o bje ct io n, t ha t Ca t alla t o ld h er she wa s s uffe r ing fr o m a he adac he , had bl urry vision, pa

i n i n l ef t che st, l ef

t arm , and “ som

e wea kne ss” of the lef t han d. She testif ie d that Catalla told her sh e had b een i

nj ured at wor k. Dr. Martinez observ ed that Cat alla had s welling and a bra sions t o t he left side o f her fac e, a br uise a ro und t he left eye, and “also some sub conj unctiv al hem orrhage” in

her left ey

e whi ch sh e defi ned as ble edi

ng i nsi de her ey e. Dr . Ma r t ine z a lso t es t ified , wit ho ut o bje ct io n, t o t he med ica l t r ea t men t Ca t alla r ec eiv ed in the em ergency roo m. Sh

e testif ie d that Catalla had recei

ved pai n m edi cation f

or her headach

e, and t hat she w as g iven magnet ic res ona nce imaging ( MRI ) a nd a c omp ut er ized a xial to mog ra phyNo. 1-09- 0517

18

(CAT ) sc an, which, she t est ifi ed, “was ne gat ive for any hemor rha ge o r mass or anything. ” She did no t t est ify

t o t he r esu lts o f the MRI . D r. Mar t inez also t est ifi ed, wit hou t objec t ion, t hat she
ex am i n ed Ca tal l a th e f oll owi n g day wi th th e u se of a m ag n eti c res on an ce an gi ograp h y (M RA ) to check f or bl eedi ng i ns i de h er ey e. She di d not testi f y conc ern i ng th e res ul ts of th e MR A. Dr. Mart in

ez test if ied, wi thou t o bj ection, t hat she consulted with a hospital n euro logist and that after the ne

urologist’s e

xam in ation, Catall

a was prescri

bed “ pil ls *** for Nam

enda” wh ich Dr . Ma r t ine z t es t ified “is fo rkin d o f inc r ea se o f t he memo ry ** * b ec au se [ Ca t alla ] co uld hardl y rem em ber wha t exactly happen ed.” Dr. Martinez testi fi

ed that she diagnosed Catalla with a concussi on. She al so test if

ie d that “[t ]he re was no blee ding [ s]o we c all that co ncus sion s eco ndar y to so me kind o f tr auma t o t he he ad.” The State further asked Dr. Martinez to describe Ca tall a’s dem eanor and “

how she was actin g” on October 24, 2006. Dr. Martin ez testif ie d without objection that Catall a appeared
sc are d a nd tha t sh e “ coul d hard

l y rem em be r.”Dr. Ma

rti nez f urth er te sti f i ed wi thou t obj ec ti on t hat Cat alla to ld her t hat she st ill suffer ed fr om hea dac hes, blurr y visi on, wea knes s in her a rm, a nd pai n i n h er ch est an d arm , and tha t she “c oul d ha

rdl y sleep.” The State asked Dr. Martinez wh ether Catall

a contin ued to suffer f

rom her i nj uries when sh e w asdi scha

rge d f rom the hos pi tal on O ctob er 2 6. D ef

ense cou ns el obj ec ted base d on relev ance an d hearsay. The trial

court overruled the obj ection an d Dr. Martinez responde d that Ca tal l a s ti l l com pl ai ne d to her th

at s he con ti nu ed to su f f er f rom he adac he s, n

erv ous ne ss , lac k of sleep and a nxiety. Dr . Ma rt inez also t est ifi ed t hat she r equ est ed a hos pit al psychiat rist t o e xamineNo. 1-09- 0517

19

Catall a bef ore she was discharged an d that t he psy

chi atrist prescrib ed Eff

exor, whi ch i s “l

ike a sti m ul an t.”W h en aske d b y th e S tate to h ow E f

f ex or w ork s, de f

ense cou n se l ob j ected wi th out a basis and t he t rial co ur t ove rr uled t he o bject ion. The t rial co ur t allowe d Dr . Ma rt inez t o r esp ond “if she kno ws. ” Dr . Ma rt inez st at ed t hat “when [ a pe rso n is] de pr esse d, [E ffexor ] incr eas e[ s] [ t he pers on’ s] pe

rsonal i ty a l i ttle.” Dr . Ma rt inez fur t her t est ifi ed, wit hou t objec t ion, t hat Cat alla rec eived “t ra nsce nt (p hone t ic), so mething t o r elax, like a Va lium, *** so mething for pain, [a nd] eye dr op s” w hen she was di scharged f

rom the hospi

tal. She al so test if ie d that she ref

erred Catall

a to a psychi

atrist and a “speci alis t for the eyes .” The S tate sh owe d D r. M ar

ti n ez th e th re e p h otogr

ap h s of Ca tal l a p re v i ous l

y re ce i v ed i n to evidenc e. Dr . Ma rt inez de scr ibed t he injuries t o C at alla’s face t hat wer e de pict ed in t he photographs
. On cro ss-examin

ation, defense cou nsel questioned D r. Ma rt inez concerning Catalla’s treat me nt after she

was di scharged f

rom the hospi

tal. Dr. Martinez

testifi ed that she exa

mi ned Cat alla app ro ximately ever y two wee ks fo llowing her discha rg e up t o t he t ime of t rial. S he further testif

ie d that she submi

tt ed to Cat alla ’s em

ploy er, Lin coln Park Hospital , periodi c m edi cal report s to do cum

ent Catall a’s i nj uries and h er in abi li ty to ret urn to wo rk. Defens e co unse l req ues t ed a sideba r c onfe re nce a nd claimed t hat St at e failed t o t ende r t he medi cal report s. The St ate re sponded as follows:

“TH E S TAT E: Jud ge, we ha ve co mplied wit h ou r d isco ver y. We have subp oe naed t he r eco rd s o f [Dr . Ma rt inez]. We t ende re d eve ryt hing we ha veNo. 1-09- 0517

20

regarding the tr eatment of Catalla. The defen se has al so subpoenaed t hese
re cords . ** * Th

e f act th at [ Ca

tal l a] con ti n ue s to se e a

doctor th rough toda y ’s da te *** is not a discovery

violation. The

y h ave a record of the i

nj uries she s ustain ed
asa re sul t of thi s. The y are aw are of the ex ten t of the i njuri essh e re ce i ve d on Oc tobe r 23 rd, 200 6. Th

at i nf orm ati on h asbe en di sc l ose d. Th

ere i s n o su rpr i se or an y thi ng n ew h ere.” De fen se co un se l did no t r eq ue st a c o nt inu an ce , bu t mad e a n o r al mo t io n fo ra mis t r ial, whi ch the tri al court den

i ed. Af ter t he State rested, t he def ense m ade a m ot ion f or a directed verdict, which was de nie d. De fen se co un se l t he n p r o ce ed ed wit h d efe nd an t ’s de fen se . T he pa r t ies st ipu lat ed t ha t if Chi cago poli ce detective F

rank Esposi

to were calle d to testify

, he would testif

y tha t he was
ass i gne d to in

ve stigate the m

atter an d tha t he i nterv i ewed Catal l a an d Gi l es on Octobe r 24, 20 06. Espos i to wou l d te sti f y th at C ata l l a tol d h i m th at def en da n t wa s ta l ki n g on th e te l ep h on e to his mot her when t he incident bega n, a nd t hat Cat alla tr ied t o p er sua de d efenda nt t o ha ng up t he tel ep hon e a nd to take hi s m ed i ca ti on, bu t he ref us ed . Ca tal l a “ tal ke d to [def

en da nt] f or app ro ximately 20 minut es. ” T he co de g ra y was t hen anno unce d and Giles ar rived . C at alla and Giles t hen joint ly “

t ried t o p er sua de [ defend ant ] t o ha ng up t he t elepho ne and t ake his medicat ion, b ut h e ref us ed .”Ca tal l a a n d G i l es th en “pi cked upa m attres s i n an atte m pt to p ush [d ef en da n t] away from the [telephone ] and gai

n control of h

im .” Defe ndan t did not testify

on hi s own beh

al f, an d the defe nse rested. The partie s m ade cl osin g argumen

ts and f oll owing jury del

ib erations, the j ury f

ound defen

dant guil ty on the threeNo. 1-09- 0517

21

cou n ts o f ag gr av ate d b atte ry . D ef en da n t f i l ed a p ost trial moti on wh i ch th e tr i al cou rt d en i ed at a sentenci ng he arin g on Decem

ber 2, 2008. Af

ter a hearin

g on aggravation a

nd m iti gation, the trial
co ur t se nt en ce d d efe nd an t t o t hr ee co nc ur r en t t er ms o f five yea r s’ impr iso nme nt in t he I llino is Depart men

t o f Correct ions. On Decem

ber 18, 2008, defen

se counsel

fi le d a m ot ion f or t he trial

court to reconsider defend ant ’s se nt ence . T he t rial co ur t held a he ar ing o n t hat mot ion o n Febr uar y 18, 200 8. Dur ing that hearin

g, defen dant in terjected, “[Go on] give m e the l ethal

in je ction. I don’t want to go t hr o ug h t his s hit
. Ju st [ go o n] an d k ill me. ” T he t r ial c o ur t ha d d efe nd an t t ak en ba ck t o his holdi ng cell and then stated as foll

ows: “THE COU

RT: Du ri ng th e pen den cy of th i s ca se, I h

av e watche d Mr. Tay l or dwi nd l e a wa y to a s he l l of the pers on th at he on cewa s. I don ’t k now what’s the caus e of thi s. But I do not beli eve sen tenci ng i s i ntended to be cruel
and un usua l i n a ny way . I be l i ev e tha

t’s the ef f ect i t’s h avi ng on Mr. Tay l or.” The trial court then reduced T ayl or’s sentence t o 3 co ncurrent t erms of 3 y ears’ i m pri sonm en t wi th cre di t for 85 0 day

s f or tim e con sidered

serv ed. This ap peal f oll ows. II. AN AL YSIS On appeal, defen

dant seeks reversal

of his convi

ctions, cl ai mi ng that the trial

court : (1) fai le d to conduct a proper fitness hear ing and, as a re sult , a buse d it s discr et ion in finding defen dant fi t t o stand trial ; (2) erred and v iolated Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986) , when t he St at e exe rc ised t wo of it s pe re mpt or y challenges t o p ur po sefully exclude t wo African-No. 1-09- 0517

22

Am erican veni repeopl e f rom th e j ury ; (3)f

ail ed to com

pl y wi th the mandate of

Supreme Court Ru l e 4 31 (b ) (I l l . S. Ct. R. 43 1(b ) (e f f . M ay 1, 2 00 7) ); an

d ( 4) i m prope rl y al l owe d th e S tate to pr es en t th e te sti mon y of on e of th e v i cti m ’s med i ca l ph y si ci ans b ec au se : (a

) the S tate

f ai l ed to di scl ose “ a statem

en t of the doctor’s q

ual i f i cations” as a n expe rt in vi ola tion of Su prem e Court Rule 4 12 ( Ill. S . C t . R . 4 12 ( eff. Ma r. 1, 200 1) ); ( b) t he medica l physician’s t est imony conc er ning “the victim’s p sycho log ical injuries wa s irr elevant ”; ( c) t he medica l physician’s t est imony “co nt ained inad missibl

e hea rsa y conc er ning medicat ions p re scr ibed by a ps ychiatr ist a nd
neuro logist”; and (d ) t he St ate fai led to lay a pro per fou ndation for the medical phy sician’s testim ony “ concerni ng the m edi cations presc

rib ed to [ the] victim .” A. P ro per Fitne ss He ar ing Fir st , de fen da nt cla ims t ha t a n ew t r ial is wa rr an t ed be ca us e t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed wh en it f ai l ed to: (1 ) con

duc t an adeq ua te f i tne ss res torati on h ea ri ng ; a nd (2) f ai l ed to sua sponte order a new f itnes s eval

uation when there ex

is ted a bona fide do ub t t ha t he wa s fit t o st an d t r ial. 1. Fitne ss Re st or at ion He ar ing Th e d ueproc es s c l au se

of the f ourte en th a men dm en t of the Un i ted State s C ons

ti tution ba rs the cri m i na l prosec uti on of a def endan t who i s n ot compe tent to stan

d tri al . U.S. Const., amend. X IV; Medina v. Ca lifornia , 50 5 U. S. 437 , 43 9 (1 992 ); People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill . 2d 312, 326 (2000) . A defendan t is presumed to be fit to st and trial. 725 ILCS 5/104- 10 (West 200 8) . A d efenda nt is unfit if he is unable t o u nder st and t he nat ur e and pur po se o f the procee di ngs agai nst hi m or to assi st i

n h i s de f en se. 7 25 IL CS 5/1 04-10(We st 2008 ); People v. Eddmonds , 14 3 Il

l . 2d 501 , 51 2 (1 991 ). “

Fi tne ss sp ea ksonl y to a p ers on’ s a

bi l i ty to f un cti onNo. 1-09- 0517

23

withi n the context of trial ; i

t do es not refer to sani

ty or competence i

n other areas.” People v. Coleman , 1 68 I ll. 2d 5 09, 524 (1 995 ). A per so n may be fit for t rial alt hou gh his mind may be otherwi se u ns ound. Coleman , 1 68 I ll. 2d a t 524 . Whe n a de fendant is found unfit a nd t re at ment has be en o rd er ed, a t rial judg e must per iod ically re view t he issue of d efenda nt ’s fitne ss t o s t and tria l and set the m

atter f or a he ari ng u pon re cei vi ng a report that de f

endan t has attai ne d f i tnes s. 725 IL CS 5/1 04-20 (a) (W est 200 8). A t a h ea ri n g to dete rm i n e def en da n t’s f i tn es s to sta

n d tri al, the tr

i al cou rt m ay con duct i ts own in quiry in to the defe

ndan t’s fi tness. 725 ILCS 5/104-11(c) (West 2008). Where the parti es st ipu lat e t o wh at an ex pe r t wo uld t es t ify, t he t r ial c o ur t may c o nsid er t his s t ipu lat ed t es t imo ny in
reachi ng i ts determ i na tion of def endan t’s f i tnes s. People

v. Lew is , 103 Il l . 2d 111 , 116 (1 984). Ho weve r, t he de fendant ’s fitne ss may not be de t er mined so lely on t he pa rt ies’ st ipulat ion t o t he expert’s conclusionsthat de f endan t is f i t to stand trial
. Lew

is , 10 3 Ill. 2d at 116 ; People v. Contorno , 32 2 I ll. A pp . 3d 17 7, 17 9 ( 20 01 )
. “U po n c o nsid er ing t he se st ipu lat io ns a nd pe r so na lly obs er ving defend ant s, t he [ t rial] c ou rt co uld find de fendant [] fit, s eek mor e infor matio n, o r find the evi dence i nsuf fi ci ent to suppo rt a fi

ndi ng of restoration to fitnes s.” Lew is , 103 Il l . 2d at 11 6. A trial court ’s determin

ation that a defendan

t is fi t t o st and trial wi

ll not be reversed absent an abuse of d i scre tion
. People v. Sandham , 174 Il l . 2d 379 , 382 (1 996); People v. Baugh , 358 Ill . App. 3d 718 , 73 2 (2 005 ); People v. Cleer, 32 8 Ill. App. 3d 4 28, 431 (20 02) ; People v. New ell , 19 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 37 3 (199 0). As a n init ial ma t t er , t he St at e a r gu es t ha t t he de fen da nt fo r feit ed t his is su e b ec au se he did not raise i t at t rial or in h is postt rial motion. However, the pl ai n-error do ctrine b

ypasses n ormalNo. 1-09- 0517

24

forfe iture pri

nci ple s and al

lows a rev

ie win g court to consider unpreserve d error when ei ther (1) the eviden

ce is cl ose, r egardless of the seriousness of the error ; or (2) the erro r is serious, re gar dless o f the clos enes s o f the evidenc e – s o s er iou s t hat it affec t ed t he fairne ss o f the def endan t’s trial an d ch al l enged the i

nteg ri ty of the j udicial

proces s. People v. Piatkow ski , 22 5 I ll. 2d 551, 564-65 (2007), citing People v. Herron , 21 5 Il l . 2d 167 , 18 6-8 7 (2 005 ). Th

e b urden of persuas i on rem

ai ns wi th the def endan t. Herron , 2 15 I ll. 2d a t 186 -8 7. In o rd er t o d et er mine wh ethe r plai n-e rror i s ap pli cab l e, we m

ust f i rst determ

i ne wh ethe r an y error occur

red. Piatkow ski , 225 Ill . 2d at 559. The ev i den ce

wa s ov er wh el m i n g th at def en da n t wa s restore d to f

i tn es s to sta

n d tri al wi th medicat ion. Dr . Ku lik inter viewed t he de fendant and mad e a finding t hat t he de fendant
man ifes t ed an un de r st an din g o f t he leg al p r o ce ed ing s a nd de mo nst r at ed an ab ilit y t o as sis t his
co unse l in hi

s de fense. See 725 ILC S 5 /1 04- 10 ( West 200 8) (r equ iring de fendant t o u nder st and the l eg al proc ee di ng s a nd as sist c oun se l

i n h i s def ense ). D r. K

ul i k f orm ul ate d a diagnos i s of de f en da n t’s men tal disor dersan d p rov i de d th e m ed i ca ti on re gi men pr es cri b ed to th e def

en da n t to stabili ze those men

tal di sorders. Dr. Kuli

k further provided a prognosis that def endan t was “[fari ng] well ” with his medi

cation regim

en and opined that defendant did n ot suff er adverse eff ects from the m

edi cation. The def

endan t was further eva

lua ted by Dr. Nadkarni

whose f in din gs weresi m i l ar to Dr . K ul i k’ s f i n di n gsan d op i n i on s, an d h e a l so f oun d def en da n t wa s restore d to f i tne ss to sta nd tri al wi th m edi ca ti on. In addi ti on, de f ense cou ns el ha d a n i nd ep en dent e va l ua ti on of h i s c l i en t b y a p ri v ate psych i atr i st w h o al so o pi n ed th at def en da n t wa s restore d to f

i tn es s to st and t rial wit h medicat ion.No. 1-09- 0517

25

Mo re ove r, t he r eco rd sho ws t hat defend ant was pr ese nt at eac h pr et rial pr oc eed ing, a nd t he t rial co ur t had nu mero us o ppo rt unit ies t o o bser ve de fendant . T her e is no evidenc e in the record t hat defe

ndan t disrupted the proceedin

gs and there is al so no evidence i n the record that de fen se co un se l ale r t ed t he t r ial c o ur t t ha t de fen da nt wa s u nw illing o run ab le t o as sis t in his defen se. De f en da nt a rguestha t thi s c as e i s s i

m i l ar to People v. Esang , 396 Il l . Ap p. 3d 83 3 (200 9). In Esang , t he t rial co ur t que st ioned t he de fendant ’s fitne ss t o s t and t rial base d o n his act ions duri ng p retri al procee di ngs and ordere d a cl

i ni cal ex am i na tion
. Esang , 396 Ill . App. 3d at 836. The defendan

t refused t o co oper ate dur in g the fi tness exami

nation and the eval

uating psy

chiatrist opi ne d he wasunf i t to stand trial
. Esang , 39 6 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 836 . A j ury he ard the ev i denc e of def endan t’s f i tnes s an d then f ound d ef endan t unf i t to stand trial
. Esang , 396 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 836. T he y als o fo un d t ha t t he r e w as a s ub st an t ial p r o ba bilit y t ha t , if pr o vid ed wit h t r ea t men t , he wo uld attai n f i tnes s wi thi n one y ear. Esang , 39 6 I ll. A pp . 3d at 83 6. T he de fen da nt wa s t he n p lac ed in t he cu st od y of t he De par t ment o f Ment al Hea lth and Deve lop menta l Disabili t ies. T he de fendant continua ll y obj ected to further f

itnes s proceedin

gs, in si stin g that he was f

it to stand tr ia

l a nd that the proceed

i ngs merel y del ay ed th e pres en

tation of h i s de f en se on the cri m i na l charges . Esang , 396 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 836. Mont hs later, the t rial court received a “90- day evaluation” repo rt concer nin g defendant’s f i tn es s to sta

n d tri al su b m i tted b y a p sy ch ol ogist a n d a psy ch i atr i st th at i n ter v i ew ed th e def en da n t. T he ev alu at io n r ep o r t ind ica t ed t ha t de fen da nt “ ‘v eh eme nt ly re fus ed all p syc ho t r o pic
medi cation,’ ” but neverthel

ess conc l uded that de f endan t was f i t to stand trial
. Esang , 39 6 I ll.No. 1-09- 0517

26

App. 3d at 836-37. The tria l court then

he l d a res

toration f i tnes s heari

ng i n w hi ch i t stated to def

endan t, “[i ]n
or der t o p ut t he ca se ba ck o n t he t rial calend ar , w e must re st or e you t o fit ness, which ca n be do ne simply by stipu lating t o [ t he wr itt en eva luat ion] .” The t rial co ur t ask ed t he de fendant whet her he
was “in conc ur re nce” wit h t he ps ychiatr ists ’ o pinion, t o w hich the defend ant re spo nded t hat he
wa s. T he t r ial c o ur t t he n fo un d d efe nd an t fit t o st an d t r ial a nd ap po int ed t he o ffice o f t he pu blic defen der to represent hi

m a t t rial . The assistant public defen der later advi

sed the trial

court that the defendant refused to assist in hi s defens e. The t rial

cour t again questioned defendan t’s fi tness to stand tri

al and ordere d an

other cl i ni cal ev al uation. Esang , 396 Ill . App. 3d at 837. On appeal, this court found that the trial court fai le d to in dependen tly anal yze and wei

gh
ex pert te sti mon y i n f i n di n g def en da n t f i t at th e f i rs t re sto ra

ti on f i tn es s h ea ri n g a n d a pp ea re d to b as e i ts f i n di n g th at th e def en da n t wa s restore d to f

i tn es s s ol el

y on th e “de f en da n t’s sti pul ati on ” to the p sy chi atri c concl

usi ons i n the wri tten ev al uation. Esang , 396 Ill . App. 3d at 837. W e f i rs t sta ted th at th e tr i al cou rt’ s a cc ep tan ce of de f en da n t’s opi n i on th at h e w as ab l e to co op er at e wit h co unse l made a “sha m of o ut t he [ re st or at ion fitne ss] hear ing” bec aus e t he de fen da nt ’s st at eme nt s w er e u nr elia ble be ca us e t he wr it t en ev alu at io n st at ed de fen da nt r efu se d a ll psy chotro pic treat me nts suggested and that his condi tion had m

in im ally chan ged from the earli er f i ndi ng th at he wasunf i t to stand trial
. Esang , 3 96 I ll. App. 3d a t 840 (c iting People v. McKinstray , 30 Ill . 2d 611, 616-17 (1964)) . We f urther found that the trial court in dic ated a “clear do ubt” co ncerni

ng the defendan

t’s fi tness to stand tr ial

both before and after t he f irst restoration heari

ng. Esang , 396 Ill . App. 3d at 840.No. 1-09- 0517

27

T he ca se at ba ris d ist ing uis ha ble fr o m Esang . Fi rst, there wa s n

o in dication i n the rec ord that the tria l court ques

tion ed de f endan t’s f i tnes s to stan

d tri al or sua sponte ordered an evalua t ion in re spo nse t o it s o bser vat ions o f defend ant dur ing pr et rial pr oc eed ings. Sec ond , t he
wr itt en eva luat ions o f Dr. Kulik and D r. Nad kar ni, unlike t he wr itt en eva luat ion in Esang , indicat ed t hat defend ant co op er at ed d ur ing t he eva luat ion and re spo nded well to his medicat ion. Thi rd, as prev i ousl y noted, the rec ord does n

ot show that the p arti es m erel y sti pul ated to Dr. Kul ik’ s concl usi on that defenda

nt was restored t o fi

tness wi th medi cation, but that they stipulated t o D r. Kulik’s bas is for his co nclusio ns. Also Dr . N adk ar ni tes t ifi ed t o his c onc lusions . Fo ur t h, as previously

noted , t here is n

ot hi ng i n the recor d that in

dicates that d efendan

t refused t o assist
co un se l in his de fen se at an y t ime p r io rt o t r ial. Defendan t also argues t hat the reco rd shows t hat the t rial cour t based its fi

ndi ng of fi tness so lely on t he co nclusio ns o f Dr. Kulik beca use it d id no t make a ny or al or wr itt en finding
co ncer ning defend ant ’s fitne ss, but merely set t he mat t er for t rial. H ow ever , “w e ar e aw ar e o f no st at ut e o r su pr eme co ur t ru le tha t re quir es t rial co ur t s t o e ither indepe ndent ly quest ion a defen dant or make ex

press f in din gs of f act regarding f

itnes s.” People v. Goodman , 347 Ill . App. 3d 2 78, 287(20 04) . In

addi ti on, asweha

ve pre vi ous l y note d, th e tri al cou rt h ad the be ne f i t of Dr. Nadka

rni ’s tes ti mony an d the s tate men

t of de f ense cou ns el tha t de f en da nt’ s p ri va te eva l ua ti on by t he ir o wn ps ycha t r ist mirr o r ed t ha t o f Dr
. Ku lik a nd Dr . Na dk ar ni. We ca nno t find an y er r o rin the tri al court’s ha ndl i ng of the f i tnes s m atter. 2. Bona Fide Do ubt Fu rth erm ore, weca

nn ot f i nd tha t the tri al cou rt er red i n f ai l i ng to sua sponte ordering aNo. 1-09- 0517

28

new f i tnes s ev al uation an d he ari ng. Defe ndan t clai ms that t he ev

ide nce that shows that there was a bona fide do ub t o f his fitness was his dec ision t o w aive an insanit y defense and his u nwilli ngnes s t o a ssist in the prepa rati on of that de f en se. People

v. Griffin , 178 Ill . 2d 65 (1997) (o nce a bona fide dou b t as to defend ant ’s fitne ss has been r aised , t he t rial co ur t has a dut y to hold a fitne ss hea ring) . D efenda nt bears the b

urden of provi

ng there i s a bona fide dou b t of f i tn es s a n d “ m us t demon strate

th at f acts exi sted at t he tim

e of hi s trial whi ch rai sed a bona fide do ubt of his ability t o u nder st and t he nature and purpose of the proceedi ngs an d to assi st in

hi s def ense.” People v. Eddmonds , 14 3 I ll. 2d 501 , 512-1 3 (199 1). T he t r ial c o ur t de t er mined t ha t de fen da nt pr o pe r ly wa ive d a n ins an it y de fen se aft er it he ld a h ea ri ng , at def ense cou ns el ’s req ue st a nd pur suan t to People v. Gettings , 175 Ill . App. 3d 920 (1988 ), to determ

i ne wh ethe r def endan t coul d wai

ve an i ns an i ty d ef en se. In Gettings , the Fourth District of the Il li nois Appel la te Court found that when a trial
co ur t is a dv ise d b y de fen se co un se l t ha t a c o mpe t en t de fen da nt ha s d ec ide d t o wa ive a v iab le insa nit y de fen se , o ve rde fen se co un se l’s o bje ct io n, t he co ur t mus t as ce r t ain wh et he rt he wa ive ris vol unta ry and i ntel l i gen t bef ore i t is acc epted. Gettings , 175 Ill . App. 3d at 924. The Gettings
co ur t ru led t hat t he t rial co ur t must t hen disc uss wit h t he de fendant whet her or not t he de fendant has be en ad vised o f the availabili t y of t he de fense; w hat re aso n t he de fendant has fo r w aiving t he de f ense ; wh eth er or n ot th e def en da n t un ders tan dsth e c on se qu en

ce s of wai v i n g a n i n sa n i ty de f ense ; an d, w h eth er or n ot de f en da n t un ders tan dsth e c on se qu en

ce s of a s uc ce ss f ul i n sa n i ty def en se. Gettings , 175 Ill . App. 3d at 925.No. 1-09- 0517

29

In th i s c as e, th e tr

i al cou rt adv i se d th e def en da n t of th e i n sa n i ty de f ense an d i n qui re d to th e rea son

de f en da n t h ad f or w ai v i n g i t. D ef en da n t re pe ate dl y as se rte d th at h e d i d n ot i n ten d to hu rt an y one , but a cte d s ol el

y i n s el f -de f ense . De f en da nt f urth er i ns i ste d that he w asi

nn ocent of the charges against hi

m an d did not want t o assert an i nsani ty defense. Defendant was als o f ri gh ten ed of a p re v i ous

men tal h ea l th f ac i l i ty wh ere h e h ad b een con f i n ed an d di d n ot wa n t to
r et ur n t o a s imilar fac ilit y. D efe nd an t wa s a dmo nish ed o f t he co nse qu en ce s o f his d ec isio n by his de fen se co un se l an d t he t r ial c o ur t . . As a r es ult , t he ev ide nc e s ho ws t he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly follow ed t he r equ irement s in Gettings an d fo un d d efe nd an t wa ive d t he insa nit y de fen se vo lun t ar ily
and i ntel l i gen tly
. Gettings , 175 Ill . App. 3d at 924. We also cannot fi

nd that defen

dant’s ref usal to rais e an i

nsan ity defen se evi denced an unwillingness t o a ssist defens e co unse l. In t his case , d efenda nt was admo nished o f the
con se qu en ce s of h i s dec i si on b y h i s def ense cou n se l an d th e tr i al cou rt, a n d h e c l ea rl y ch ose n ot to as sert an i ns an i ty de f ense , wh i ch wa s h i s ri gh t to do. People v. Ramey , 152 Ill . 2d 41, 53-54 (1992 ) (a de f

endan t has the ri ght to choose wh

i ch def en se theory

to presen t to t he trie r of f act). De fen da nt fur t he rcla ims t he r ema rks mad e b y de fen da nt at t he he ar ing t o r ec o nsid er his sentence on February

18, 2008, t o “[Go on] and kil l m e” as ev ide nce that i ndicated a bona fide do ub t o f de fen da nt ’s fit ne ss . De fen da nt als o po int s t o t he t r ial ju dg e’ s r ema rks at t ha t sa me heari ng concern

in g defen dant’s “ deteriorated mental state” as further support o f a bona fide doubt o f def

endan t’s fi tness. Those rem

arks occurred approxim

ately four m onths af ter def endan t’s trial
. However, we fi

nd no ev ide nce, an d defen dant does not cite any

, that shows the remarksNo. 1-09- 0517

30

ale r t ed t he t r ial c o ur t t ha t de fen da nt wa s u na ble t o un de r st an d t he pr o ce ed ing s o ras sis t in his de f ense at a ny poi nt d uri ng the tri al such tha t the tri al cou rt wa s req ui red to sua sp onte

order another psy

chi atric eva lua tion and h old a f itnes s heari

ng. In su m , th e tri al cou rt di d n ot com m i t error i n c ond uc ti ng the f i tne ss res torati on h ea ri ng or by f ai l i ng to sua sp onte

order a new fi

tness eval uation an d heari ng. Wh ere “there i s no error at al l ,” the re ca nn ot be pl ai n error anal

y si s. People v. Nicholas , 218 Il l . 2d 104 , 121 (2 005). Accordin gly , this cl ai m i s f orfei ted. B. Batson Cla im Se con d, d ef en da n t cl ai m s th at a n ew trial i s war ra n ted b ec au se th e S tate us ed i ts pe re mpt o ry c halle nge s t o exc lud e t wo Afr ica n- Amer ica n jur o rs fro m t he ju ry in vio lat io n o f Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U .S. 79 (19 86). In Batson , the Uni

ted St ates Supreme Court held that t he f ourt eenth am

endm ent’s equal pr ot ect ion clau se p ro hibits t he St at e fro m using a p er empt or y challenge t o e xclude a pr os pec t ive j uror solel

y on the ba si s of race . Batson , 476 U .S. at 89. Un der Batson , th e e qua

l prote cti on cl ause of the f

ourt eenth am

endm ent is violated where the f

acts show that the Stat e excl uded an A f rica n- A meri ca n v en i rep ers on on

the as su m ption th at the p ers on w

i l l be bi as ed i n f av or of def endan t si m pl y be caus e of

thei r shared r ace . Batson , 476 U.S. at 97. Th e U ni ted State s S upr

em e C ourt provi de d a

three -s tep an

al y sis f or ev al ua ti ng cl ai m s of di scri m i na tion i n j ury sel ection. Rice v. Collins , 5 46 U .S . 3 33, 338 (2 006 ). First , t he moving par t y has t he bur den t o s how t hat t he no nmoving p ar t y exerc ised it s pe re mpt or y challenge o n t he ba si s of race . Rice , 546 U.S. at 338 (citi ng Batson , 47 6 U. S. at 96- 97) ; People v. Easley , 19 2 I ll.No. 1-09- 0517

31

2d 307, 323 (2000). If a prima facie cas e i s m ade, th e proce ss m

oves to the se cond

step w here the bu rde n of pers ua si on s hi f ts to the n

onm ovi ng pa rty to pre sent a

rac e-n eu tral rea son f or ex cus i ng th e v en i reperson. Rice , 546 U.S. at 338 (citi ng Batson , 476 U. S. at 97-98) ; see al so Easley , 1 92 I ll. 2d a t 323 -2 4. “Altho ugh t he pr os ecu t or must pr ese nt a co mpre hensible re aso n, ‘the second stop of thi s process does not deman d an ex pla nation tha t is persuas iv

e, or even pla usi ble’; s o long as the reas on is not inh erently dis crim in ator y, i t suff ic es.” Rice , 546 U.S. at 338 (q uo t ingPurkett v. Elem , 514 U .S. 765, 7 67-68 (1995 ) ( per curiam )). Once t he no nmoving p ar t y pre sent s its re aso n for excu sing t he venire per so n in ques t ion, the pro cess moves to t he third step in the anal ysi s. In that third step, t he trial court must determi ne wh ether the movi

ng party h

as sustai ned i ts burden of es

tabli shi ng purposeful di scri m i na tion
. Rice , 546 U.S. at 338 (citi ng Batson , 476 U.S. at 98). “Thi s f in al step in volv es ev al ua ti n g ‘ th e p er suas i

v en es s of th e j us ti f i ca ti on ’ prof f ered b y th e p ros ecutor , but ‘ th e ul ti mate bur den o f per sua sion r ega rd ing ra cial mot ivatio n re st s wit h, a nd neve r shift s fro m, t he o ppo nent of the strike.’ ” Rice , 546 U.S. at 338 (quot in g Purk ett , 514 U .S. at 768). 1. Prima Facie Case In determi

ni ng whether a prima facie case of raci al dis crim in ation i n j ury s el ection h

as been establ is hed, the f oll owing rel evan t circum stances sh ould be considered: (1) the racial iden tity between the defendan t and t he excl

uded veni reperso ns; (2) the pat tern o f strikes agai nst Af rican-Am erican v eni reperso ns; (3) the dispropo rtionat e use of perempto ry chal len ges agains

t Af rican -Am erica n ve ni repersons; (4) the level

of Af rican -Am erica n represen

tation in the ven ire as compared to the jury ; (5) the prosecuto r's questions and statements duri ng voir dire exam

i na ti onNo. 1-09- 0517

32

and wh il e exercisi ng perem pto ry ch alle nges; (6) whether the excl uded Af rican -Am erica n venirep er so ns we re a het er og eneo us g ro up s har ing ra ce a s t heir o nly common cha ra ct er istic; a nd (7) the race of the def

endan t, victi m , and wi tnes ses . People v. Williams , 173 Il l . 2d 48 ( 1996) ; People v. Hudson , 15 7 Ill. 2d 401 , 42 6 (1 993 ); Pe o p l e v . A n d

re ws , 146 Ill . 2d 413, 425-26 (1992 ). Here, the trial

court found that a prima facie cas e of di scri m i na tion und er Batson was establ is hed. Our revi

ew of the ev

ide nce i n l igh t o f al l the rel evan t circum stances also reveal s that
a prima facie cas e of

di scri m i na tion und er Batson wa s e sta

bl i sh ed . How ever, de f

en da nt d oesnot argu e that fi

nding on appeal. Defendant argu es that the t rial court ’s det ermin ation t hat t he St ate ’s
race -ne utral reas ons f or exc usi ng two v en i repersons wasi n error. 2. Rac e- Neu t ra l Reaso ns Our anal ys is now focuses on the

second step to det ermi

ne wh ether the Stat e provided race-neutral reas ons f

or excusi ng L.H. and V.W .. A race-neutral reas on is an ex pla nation b ased
on som ethi ng other tha

n the rac e of

the v en i reperson. Hernandez v. New York , 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991 ). In the case at ba

r, the Stat e provided i

ts “pri ma ry reas on” for excus in

g L.H. and V.W. was
no t ba se d o n t he ir r ac e, bu t o n t he ir e mplo yment in “t he so cia l wo rke rfield , ” c laiming t he y co uld be sy mpa thetic to t he def

ense. Em ploy me nt in the social work fi el d has b een h

el d to be a raceneutral reas on for a perem pto ry ch alle nge. See People

v. Hemphil

l , 230 Ill . App. 3d 453, 467-68 (1992) (citin

g People v. Mack

, 1 28 I ll. 2d 2 31 ( 198 9) ) ( challenge on t he bas is of emplo yment po sitio ns is a r ace -ne ut ra l reas on) . T he St at e also pr ovid ed a n add itio nal rea so n for excu singNo. 1-09- 0517

2 The record and the parties’ appella te brief s do not indi

cate L.H.’s age. 33 L.H., clai mi ng “ she is a y

oung woman

” 2 and yo ut h as a basis fo r a per empt or y challenge ha s be hel d to be a race-n

eutral reason. See People v. Taylor , 17 1 Il l . A pp. 3d 2 61 ( 198 8) ( ch

al l en geon the b asis of

youth has b een

he l d to be ra

ce-n eutral ). 3. Tr i al Cou rt’ s D eterm

i na ti on Our anal ys is now focuses on the

third step where the trial

court mus

t deter mi ne wh ether defend ant has c ar ried his “ultimat e bur den o f per sua sion r ega rd ing ra cial mot ivatio n.” As pr ev io us ly no t ed , t his bu r de n ne ve rsh ift s fr o m t he mo vin g p ar t y. Rice , 5 46 U .S . a t 338 (c iting Purk ett , 514 U .S. at 768). A tri al cou rt’ s th i rd step f i nd i ng on th e ul ti matei ss ueof di scri m i na ti on r es ts l arg el y on credi bi l i ty d eterm i na tions. People v. R ivera , 221 Ill . 2d 481, 502 (2006) (citing McDonnell v. McPar tlin , 19 2 I l l . 2d

50 5, 5 27 (2 00 0) ). C on se qu en tl y , the tr i al cou rt’ s f i n di n g i s e n ti tl ed to “g reat de f eren ce” and wi l l not be set as i de un

l ess clearl y errone ous. Hernandez , 500 U.S. at 365; Rivera , 22 1 Ill. 2d at 502 ; McDonnell , 19 2 Ill. 2d at 527 ; People v. Munson , 171 Ill . 2d 158, 175 (1 996 ). As t he Unit ed S t at es S upr eme Co ur t obs er ved in Hernandez , there wil l s el dom be

muc h evidenc e bea ring u po n t he ult imate q ues t ion o f discr imi nat ion and t he “best evidenc e o fte n will be the dem eanor of the atto rney

who exercises the ch

alle nge.” Hernandez , 5 00 U .S . a t 365 . T he evalua t ion o f the at t or ney’s st at e o f mi nd is mos t oft en “base d o n demea nor and c re dibili t y” and thus “l ie s ‘pecul ia rly withi n the trial judge ’s provi

nce.’ ” Hernandez , 5 00 U .S . a t 365 (q uo t ing Wainw right v. W

itt , 469 U .S. 412, 4 28 (19 85)).No. 1-09- 0517

34

Foll owing the Stat e’s reasons

for excl udin g L.H. and V.W., def

ense couns el

argued that the S tat e’s reaso ns were pr ete xtual. S pecifi call y, defense counsel pointed to the S tat e’s acceptance of v

eni reperson E.V., a non-Afri can-A me rican , who testifi

ed that she i s a case worker and ve nirep er so n D. J., a no n-Africa n-Amer ican, who m defense co unse l arg ued “co uld be
consi dered ” a soc i al work er b ec au se

sh e i s em pl oyed asa supe rvi sor wi th th e Il l i noi s A cti on f or Chi ldren, which sub sidiz es chi ld c are. The State responded that E .V. and D.J. were em ploy ed i n superv is ory positions “as opposed t o wor kin

g in the fi el d,” although, as def

ense couns el

correct ly pointed out, E. V. testi f i ed th at she was

a ca seworker an

d tha t it wa s her h

usb and wh

o hel d a superv

i sory posi tion
. We cann ot say that the t rial

cour t’s det ermi

nation that defendant failed to est abl ish pur po seful disc riminatio n was clear ly erro neo us. We first co nsider t hat at t he t ime defenda nt raised his Batson cl ai

m, the parti es had agree d on and sel ected the fi

rst panel of j urors which
con siste d of f our j ur ors , th re e of wh om wereA f ri ca n -A meri ca n . N ex t, a s n oted , the S tate provided v

alid race -neutral reasons

for excus in

g L.H. and V.W. b ased on thei r empl oym ent as so cial wo rk er s and L.H .’s yout h. I n add itio n, t he St at e pr ovid ed a n add itio nal rea so n for excu sing
so me, bu t not all, so cial wo rk er s fro m the ve nire, namely, t hat it had only seve n per empt or ies and soci al workers were i n “ abund ance,” so i t coul d not ex

cus e ev ery soci al worker. As n ot ed, defen

se counsel

argues that the Stat e’s reasons were nev ertheles s pretextual because i t accept ed veni

reperso ns E.V. and D.J. , who wer e non-Afri can-Am erican soci al workers, but excused L.H.and V. W., who were African-A merican social

work ers. Even as sum

in g that L.H., V. W., E.V. and D.J. all shared the sa

me trait as “socialNo. 1-09- 0517

35

work ers ,” th e m ere f ac t tha t the State ch al l en ge s a A f rica n- A meri ca n v en i rep ers on f

or a rea son which is eq ually applicable t o a non- African- American jur or do es no t sho w in and o f itself t hat t he off ered e xpl anati on i s pretextua

l
. People v. Hudson , 157 Il l . 2d 401 , 431 (1 993). A

perem ptory chal l enge m ay be ba sed on a c ombi

na tion of trai ts. Hudson , 15 7 I ll. 2 d a t 43 1. As t he I llino is Supreme C ourt has stated: “ [I]n man y i ns tan ce s th ere wi l l be no s i ngl e c ri teri on th at s erv esasthe basis f or t he de cis io n w he t he rt o ex cu se a p ar t icu lar [ ve nir ep er so n]
. A c ha r ac t er ist ic deem ed to be unf avorabl e i n one prosp ecti

ve j uror, an d he nc e groun ds f or a perem ptory c ha l l enge, m ay, i n a sec ond pr

ospectiv e j uror, be

outweighe d by

other, fav orable c haracteris tics.” People v. Mack

, 128 Il l . 2d 231 , 239 (1 989). In thi s c as e, th e evi de nc e i n th e re cord sh owe d that L .h . wa s n

ot onl y excu se d b as ed

on her empl oym ent as a social worker, but also excused based on her y out h, which, as noted, is a
race -ne utral reas on f or exc l usi on. Taylor , 171 Ill . App. 3d at 268. Defendan t do es not argue that yout h was a t ra it p os sess ed by eit her E. V. , D .J. , o r V .W. . Fu rt her mor e, D. J. w as e mployed in a supe rvisory posi tion , whi ch

was not a trai t posses sed

by ei ther L .H., V.W ., or E.V.. Whi le def endant cor rectly poin

ts o ut t hat E. V. t estifi

ed that she i s empl

oyed as a “case worker” sim

il ar to V.W, E.V. also testif ie d durin g voir dire t o a number of t ra its d iff er ent t ha n t ho se o f V. W. . E . V. t es t ified t ha t she is a ca se wo rke r , ha s be en emp lo yed in t he sa me positi on for 22 y

ears, she is m

arried to another caseworker who holds a s upervi sory role, sh

e has four chi ldren, and she has b een the v ictim of domestic vi

olen ce and was

al so a victim

of sex ual assaul t as a chi ld. V.W ., on t he other han d, testifi ed that she i s a case worker, att ends ch urchNo. 1-09- 0517

36

regul arl y , i s un married, h

as n o chi l dren , and has nev er b een the v i cti m of a cri me. Cl earl y there
were other trai ts that the State m

ay ha ve cons i dered

i n n ot chal l engi ng E.V .. See, e.g. , People v. Mack, 12 8 I l l . 2d

23 1, 2 43 (1 98 9) (“ oth er

ci rc um sta n ce s m ay h av e l ed prose cu torsn ot to chal le nge” wh ite ve ni repersons possessi

ng the sam

e traits as cha

ll enged Afri

can-A me rican
veni repersons ). The tria l court al so f

ound d ef en se c ouns el ’sconc ern

that the State’s reas ons were pretextual unf

ounded becaus e there was no i ndication that “one cul

ture wo uld b e predis

posed” and “ more sui ted for the defense case or the prosecution case” a nd f ound that t he State pro vi

ded
ra ce- neut ra l reas ons for excu sing L. H. and V .W. Altho ugh t he make up o f the jury wa s no t fou nd i n the rec ord on ap

peal , the f act tha t three out of

the f our j urors s elected on

the f i rst pan el were Af rican -Am erica n sh ow that t he State had al

ready a greed on a j ury wi

th stro ng Afri

can-A me rican repre sen tation
. Our re view o f the evidenc e in light o f all the r elevant circu msta nces re veals t hat defend ant did n ot me et his

“ul tim ate burden of pers

uasion regardin

g racia l m ot iv ation.” Gi ven the “great de f ere nc e”ac cord

ed to the tri al cou rt’ s r ul i ng an d b as ed on ou r revi ew of the ev i denc e, we c an

not find t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de t er minat io n t ha t t he r e w as no int en t io na l dis cr iminat io n w as cle ar ly
erro neous. C. Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 4 31( b) Third , d efenda nt claims tha t he wa s de nied his right t o a fair and impart ial jury becau se t he t r ial ju dg e fa iled t o qu es t io n t he pr o sp ec t ive jur o r s r eg ar din g a ll fo ur pr inc iple s e nu mer at ed in People v. Zehr , 103 I ll . 2d 472 ( 1984), and codifi ed in Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (Ill . S. Ct . R.No. 1-09- 0517

37

431 (e ff. May 1, 200 7) ). Unde r t hat ru le, t he t rial co ur t must ask juro rs w het her t hey unde rst and and accept t hat: (1) defendan t is presumed i

nnocent of the charges against hi m; (2) t he Stat e must pr ove defend ant guilt y beyond a re aso nable do ubt ; (3 ) d efenda nt is not re quir ed t o p re sent ev i denc e on hi s b eh al f ; a nd (4) de f en da nt h asthe righ t not to te sti

f y an d h i s f ai l ure to do s o ca

nn ot be held a gainst him. Ill. S. Ct . R . 4 31( b) ( eff. Ma y 1, 2 007 ). Sp ecifically, defend ant ar gue s t hat he was pr ejudiced where t he tr ial cou rt fai led to admonish the pot ential j uro rs reg arding defendant’s ri ght n ot to testi f

y . The State clai

ms that defenda

nt forfei ted review

of thi s error because he f ai le d to obje ct at trial or raise i t in a posttrial

motion. To preserve a cl ai m f or review, a def

endan t must both obje ct at tria l and i nc l ude the error i

n a wri tten posttrial

motion
. People v. Woods , 214 Ill . 2d 455, 470 (2005 ); People v. Enoch , 12 2 I ll. 2 d 1 76 , 18 6 ( 19 88 )
. De fen da nt ad mit s t ha t he faile d t o pr o pe r ly pres erve this i ssue f

or appea l , but urg es u s to revi ew the error un der the pl ai n-e rror doctri

ne . “[T ]he plain-e rr or do ct rine bypas ses no rmal for feitu re pr inciples and allows a r eviewing
co ur t t o c ons ider unpr ese rve d er ro r w hen eit her (1 ) t he evide nce is clo se, re gar dless o f the seri ousness of the error, or (2) th

e error is se

ri ous, reg ardl

ess of the cl osen ess of th e ev i den ce.” People v. Herron , 21 5 Il

l . 2d 167 , 18 6-8 7 (2 005 ). U

nd er th e f i rs t pron g, th e def en da nt m us t sh ow that t he ev

ide nce at trial

was so closely

bal anced that the error alone “ threatened to t ip the s cal es of j ustice agai

nst hi m.” Herron , 215 I ll . 2d at 187. Under t he second prong, the defendant must pr ove t hat t he er ro r w as so ser iou s t hat it affec t ed t he fairne ss o f the t rial and que st ions t he i nteg ri ty of the j udicial

proces s. Herron , 21 5 Il

l . 2d at 1 87. Un

der ei the r prong of a p l ai n- err or anal y si s, i t is the def endan t rather th an the State who bea rs the bur den of p ersuasi

on. UnitedNo. 1-09- 0517

38

States v. Olano , 50 7 U. S. 725 , 73 4 (1 993 ); Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 187. How ever, be f

ore c ons i de ri

ng pl ai n e rror, we m us t f i rs t de term

i ne whether a

n e rror occurre d at al

l
. People v. Piatkow

ski , 225 Il l . 2d 551 , 565 (2 007) (i

n orde r to cl ai m plai n error, def endan t mu st sh ow “f i rst” th at an

error occur

red). H ere, there is n

o di spute th

at the tri al court erred i n f ail i ng to stri ctl y com pl y wi th Ru l e 431 (b) w

hen i t fa i l ed to even

di scu ss w

i th the veni re t ha t de fen da nt ’s failu r e t o t es t ify ca nno t be he ld a ga inst him. In his ap pellat e br ief, de fendant claims tha t t his violat ion o f Rule 43 1( b) falls und er t he
se co nd pr o ng o f pla in e rr o rbe ca us e it co nst it ut es a s t ruc t ur al e rr o rr eq uir ing au t o mat ic r ev er sa l. However, after def

endan t file d hi s appel

la te brief , the Ill in ois Suprem

e Court decided

People v. Thompson , 2 38 I ll. 2d 5 98 ( 201 0) . I n Thompson , o ur sup reme cou rt found t hat a t rial court ’s vi olation of Rul e 431(b) “does n

ot fal l wi thin the very li mi ted catego ry of

structur al

errors and, thus, does not require automatic reve rsal of def endan t’s convi ction.” Thompson , 238 Ill . 2d at 61 1. I n addi ti on , de f en da n t doe s n ot cl ai m th at th e tr i al cou rt’ s f ai l ur e to s tri ctl y com pl y wi th Rul e 431 (b) re sul

ted i n a bi ase d j ury . Thompson , 2 38 I ll. 2d a t 614 (“[ a] finding tha t defend ant wa s t r ied by a b ias ed jur y wo uld ce r t ain ly sa t isfy t he se co nd pr o ng o f pla in- er r o rr ev iew be ca us e it would af f ect h i s ri ght to a f ai r tri al and ch al l enge th e i

nteg ri ty of the j udicial

proces s”). A cc ordi n gl y , w e do n ot f

i n d th at th e tr i al cou rt’ s R ul e 4 31 (b ) v

i ol ati on i n th i s c as e w ar

ra n ts aut omat ic reve rsa l of de fendant ’s co nvictio n. In his repl y b rief , which def

endan t file d after the Thompson deci si on, he clai ms that we should now consider the error under t he f irst prong of pl

ai n error because the ev

ide nce at trial was closel

y b alan ced. In suppo rt o f h

is argum ent defendant argues t hat the evidence was cl oseNo. 1-09- 0517

39

co ncer ning his intent and t he element of g re at bod ily har m. As t o int ent , d efenda nt ar gue s t hat t he “jury co uld have believed” t hat beca use he wa s in a psychiat ric w ar d and “had a fear of be ing med ica t ed , ” h e r ea so na bly ac t ed in se lf-d efe nse . As t o t he ele men t o f gr ea t bo dily ha rm, de f en da nt a rguestha t the “ j ury may ha ve be l i eved” that C atal l a suf f ere d on l y bod i l y ha rm an d n ot great bodil

y h arm af ter consideri

ng Catal la ’s testim

ony tha t she was pun

ched an d kic ked several tim es a nd th e ph otographs en tered i nto ev i den ce that “s how on l y a brui sed ey e.” We do not f i nd d ef endan t’s a rgum en t, that the e

vi den ce was cl osel y ba l ance, pe rsua si ve . At tr ial, Cata ll

a test if ied that defendant was “out o f contro l” an d that a code gr ay was cal led as a
res ul t. Ca tal l a te sti f i ed tha t sh e tri ed to cal m de f en da nt b y sp ea ki ng wi th h i m , but he w oul

d n ot calm do wn. Cat alla te st ifi ed t hat she a nd o t her st aff members ap pr oa ched defend ant wit h a
ma tt ress i n an attempt t o phys ic ally

restrain h im , but she was un

abl e to r em em ber the events that fo llo we d b ec au se she wo ke up in t he eme r ge nc y ro o m. Giles also t est ifi

ed t hat defend ant moved ar ou nd t he mat t re ss as t hey app ro ache d and punch ed and ki cked Catall

a and Gi le s until they

both fel l to the fl oor . Gil es f urther test if

ie d that defen dant contin

ued to kick and stomp on them whi le they were on the fl

oor . Gil es testif ie d that both C atal

l a an d Gi l es w ere re

nde red un cons cious as

a res ul t of the be ati ng. In addi tion, Erhabor and A

rrin gto n also test if

ie d at tr ia l. The y bot h testif

ie d that t hey observed def

endan t punch Catal

la and Gi le s until they

fel l to the fl oor . They

al so test if

ie d that de fen da nt co nt inu ed t o kic k C at alla an d G iles wh ile t he y we r e o n t he flo o ran d t ha t bo t h C at alla
and Gi l es f el l unc onsc i ous dur

i ng th e attack
. Furthermore, Dr. Mart in

ez test if ied to t he extent of the inj uries that Cat all a suff ered as aNo. 1-09- 0517

40

resul t o f the attack. She testif ie d that when sh

e exam in ed Catall a i n the h ospital she obs erved that Catall a had b ruisi ng around her ey

e and l acerations on the l

eft si de of her f

ace. Dr. Martinez furt her t est ifi

ed t hat Cat alla co mplained o f heada ches and p ain on t he left side o f her fac e and ches t . D r. Mar t inez fur t her t est ifi ed t hat she d iagno sed Cat alla with a co ncus sion. In su m , we f i nd tha t de f en da nt h asnot s how n th at the evi denc e w ascl

ose l y ba l an ce d on any of t he element s o f the offense for which he w as c onvict ed. Thu s, t he er ro r d id no t rise t o t he le vel of plai n error, under either prong of the pl ai n-error do ctrine. D. Dr . Ma rt inez’s T est imony Fo ur t h, d efenda nt claims tha t t he t rial co ur t impro per ly all ow ed t he St at e t o p re sent t he testi m on y of on e of th e v i cti m ’s tre ati n g m ed i ca l ph y si ci ans b ec au se : (a

) the S tate

f ai l ed to di scl ose “ a statem

en t of the doctor’s q

ual i f i cations” as a n expe rt in vi ola tion of Su prem e Court Rule 4 12 ( Ill. S . C t . R . 4 12 ( eff. Ma r. 1, 200 1) ); ( b) t he medica l physician’s t est imony conc er ning “the victim’s p sycho log ical injuries wa s irr elevant ”; ( c) t he medica l physician’s t est imony “co nt ained inad missibl

e hea rsa y conc er ning medicat ions p re scr ibed by a ps ychiatr ist a nd
neuro logist”; and (d ) t he St ate fai led to lay a pro per fou ndation for the medical phy sician’s testim ony “ concerni ng the m edi cations presc

rib ed to [ the] victim .” 1. Supreme Court Rule 412 Defe ndan t ini tial ly argues that the trial

court erred in

allowi ng Dr. Martin

ez to t estif

y, over defens e co unse l’s objec t ions, as a n expe rt wit ness be cau se t he St at e failed t o p ro vide a s t at ement of the m edi cal phy sician ’squal

i f i cations as an

ex pert i n v i ola tion of Su prem e Court Ru

l e 412
. Defe ndan t further argues the State faile d to provide m edi cal report s authored by

Dr. MartinezNo. 1-09- 0517

41

al so in violation of

Supreme C ourt Rul e 412. Our s tandard of

revi ew f or eva l uati ng a di scovery

vi ola tion i s wh ethe r the tri al court abuse d i ts di scre tion
. People v. Hendricks , 3 25 I ll. App. 3d 1 097 , 1 102 (2 001 ). Altho ugh t he j udg men t of the tri al cou rt i s g i ve n g rea t we i gh t, a rev i ew i ng cou rt wi l l f i nd an ab us e of di screti on when a defend ant is pre

judiced by the d isco ver y violat ion and t he t rial co ur t fails to elimi nat e t he prej udi ce. People v. Weaver

, 92 I ll. 2 d 5 45 , 55 9 ( 19 82 )
. “[ T ] he pu r po se o f t he dis co ve ry ru les is to prot ect the accused agai nst surpris e, unf

ai rness, an d in adequate preparation.” People v. Heard , 18 7 I ll. 2 d 3 6, 63 ( 19 99 )
. Alt ho ug h c o mplia nc e w it h t he rule s is man da t o ry, f ailu r e t o co mply wi th the di scovery

rules d oes n ot requi re rev ersa l ab sen t a sh owi ng of prej udice. Heard , 18 7 I ll. 2d at 63 (citin

g People v. Robinson , 15 7 Il l . 2d 68, 78 ( 199 3)) . The b

urden of sh owi ng su rpr i se or pr eju dic e is up o n t he de fen da nt , an d t he failu r e t o r eq ue st a c o nt inu an ce is a r ele va nt fac t o rin deter m i n i n g w h eth er th e te sti mon y actual l y su rp ri se d or un dul y pr ej udi ce d th

e def en da n t. Robinson , 157 Ill . 2d at 78. Supreme C ourt Rul e 412 governs disclosure to the accused i n cri mi nal cases an d provides in pert in ent part as foll

ows:

“ (a) Ex ce pt a s is oth

erw i se prov i de d i n th es e ru l esasto matters not subj ect to dis cl osure and protect iv e orders, t he State shal

l, upon wri

tt en mot ion o f defense co unse l, disclo se t o d efense co unse l the fo llowing mat er ial a nd info rmat io n w it hin it s p o ss es sio n o rco nt r o l:

*** (ii) an y wri tten or re cord ed sta tem en ts a nd the su bs tan ceofNo. 1-09- 0517

42 any oral statemen

ts made b y the accused *** an

d a lis t o f wi tnesses to the m aki ng a nd a ckn owl edgm en t of su ch statem en ts.
*** ( iv) an y re po r t s o rst at eme nt s o f ex pe r t s, mad e in
con ne cti on w i th th e p arti cul ar c as e, i

nc l udi ng *** a s tate men

t of qualif ic ations of

the expert.” Ill . S. Ct. R. 421(a) (eff . Mar. 1, 2001)
. In argui ng that Dr. Martinez’ s provide d expert testim ony, def endan t cites Dr. Martinez t es t imo ny t ha t she wa s no t t he eme r ge nc y ro o m ph ysic ian at t he t ime, bu t wa s C at alla ’s “fa mily physician” and “thu s und er t he co nt ro l of Cat alla.” Fur t her mor e, Dr . Ma rt inez t est ifi ed c onc er ning “other docto rs’ diagnoses” of Catall a and com

pil ed i nf ormation to ensure that Catall a could stay on leav e f rom h er em ploym en t. The State

argue s tha

t the tri al court properl

y al l owed Dr. Martinez to test if

y as a “ treat in g phys ici an,” which i s disti

nguis habl e from an ex

pert witness. In Tzystu ck v. Chi

cago Tra nsit Author

ity , 12 4 I ll. 2 d 2 26 , 23 4- 35 ( 19 88 ) , o ur su pr eme court distin

gui she d betwee

n the two as fol

l ows: “T r ea t ing ph ysic ian s * ** t ypic ally a r e n o t ‘r et ain ed t o r en de ran o pin io n a t t r ial’ [ un de rt he lan gu ag e o f t he rule ] bu t ar e c o nsu lt ed , wh et he ro rno t lit iga t io n is pe nd ing o rco nt emp lat ed , t o t r ea t a p at ien t ’s ph ysic al o rmen t al p r o ble m. While t re at ing physicians may give o pinions a t t rial, t hos e o pinions a re deve lop ed in t he course of treating the patie nt and are com

ple tely apart from an

y l iti gation. Such an
o pinio n is no t fo rme d in a nt icipa t io n o f a t ria l, b ut is simp ly th e p ro du ct o f aNo. 1-09- 0517

43

physician’s o bser vat ions w hile tr eat ing t he pa t ient, which co incident ally m ay have
va l ue as evi den ce a t a tria l . In th i s res pect, the opi

ni ons of treati ng phy sician s are si m i l ar to those of

occurre nc e wi tnes ses who testi f

y , not be caus e the

y were re t ained in t he exp ect at ion t hey might d evelo p and give a p ar t icular op inion o n a dispu t ed issu e at t rial, bu t beca use t hey witne ssed or par t icipat ed in t he trans actions or e

vents th at are p art of th

e su bj ect m atter of th e l i tig ati on.” Tzystuck , 124 Ill . 2d at 234-35. Under Tzystuck

, w het her a do ct or is a t re at ing physician o r a n expe rt dep ends on t he phy sician ’srelati onsh

i p to the ca se, n

ot on the s

ubs tanc e of his testi mony . Cochran v. Great Atlantic &Pacific Tea Co. , 2 03 I ll. App. 3d 9 35, 940 (1 990 ). A tr eat ing physician is o ne cons ul ted f or treatmen

t whereas an ex pert i s one

cons ul ted to rend

er an opi ni on at trial
. People v. Blair , 395 Ill . App. 3d 465, 485 (2009) (citin g Cochran , 203 I ll . App. 3d at 941); see also Tzystuck , 124 Ill . 2d at 234. In d et er mini

ng whe t her Dr . Ma rt inez t est ifi ed a s an e xper t or a t re at ing physician, w e find People v. Cortez , 3 61 I ll. App. 3d 4 56 ( 200 5) , inst ru ct ive. I n Cortez , the defen dant was convi

cted
o f dr iving wit h a blo o d- alc o ho l co nc en t r at io n o f 0. 08 o rgr ea t er in vio lat io n o f t he I llino is V eh icle Code. On appeal , the defen dant argued that the tr ia

l c ourt erred in

allowi ng a ph ys ic ia n, who was not discl osed as an ex

pert witness pursuan

t t o Rule 412, to t estif

y as to t he ef

fect of the us e of an al coh ol sw ab an d the adm i ni stra ti on of a s al i ne sol ution on the res ul ts of the de f en da nt’ s b l ood test. T he Second District of the Illi nois Appel la te Court , citi

ng Tzystuck

, re jected t he defendant’s cl ai m, h oldi ng that, although the ph

ys ic ia n’s testim ony tech nically constituted an “opi

nion,” it wasNo. 1-09- 0517

44

not ren dered i n a ntici pation of l i tig ati on. Cortez , 36 1 I l l . A pp . 3d at 4 66 . Rath

er , the a pp el l ate co ur t st at ed t ha t t he o pin io n w as “ ‘s imply t he pr o du ct o f [ t he ] ph ysic ian ’s o bse rva t io ns w hile treat in g the [defen

dant].’ ” Cortez , 361 Ill . App. 3d at 466 (quo ting Tzy stuck, 124 Ill . 2d at 234- 35). Al so in

rejec ting the de fen

dant’s cl ai m, the appel

la te court reasoned that, as a practical mat t er , if t he c o ur t we re t o ad o pt his p o sit io n, all t re at ing p hysicia ns w o uld be r eq uir ed t o t es t ify
as expe rts. Cortez , 361 Ill . App. 3d at 466. In the ca se at b ar, weca

nn ot sa y tha t Dr. Ma rti nez w asan

ex pert wi tne ss asoppos ed

to a treat in g phy si ci an f or discovery

purposes. Dr. Mart in

ez’s testim

ony was a product o f h

er observati ons whi

le treat in g her patien

t Catall a i n the h ospital , and was n

ot retained to provide an
o pin io n a t t r ial. Dr. Martinez testi fi

ed that she was contacted by em ergency roo m pe rsonnel to in form her t hat Cat alla need ed t o be admit t ed. Dr . Ma rt inez t est ifi ed t hat she be gan t re at ment o f Cat alla the followi ng day and conti nued to tr eat her until

she was released f

rom the hospi

tal. She f urther testifi ed that she exa

mi ned Catal la every two weeks foll

owing h er releas e through the trial date. Dr . Ma r t ine z fu r t he rt es t ified t ha t Ca t alla co mpla ine d o f he ad ac he s, blu rr ed visio n, pa in in her left a rm and left side of he r c hest , a nd we akne ss in her left a rm. D r. Mar t inez t est ifi ed t hat she
exam in ed Catall a and used the

dia gnostic tools of a CA

T Scan, MRI and M

RA. She a

ls o t estif ie d that she diagnosed Catalla with a concussi on and prescri

bed ey e drops, pain m

edi cation f

or her h eadach e, an d “ tra n sc en t [ sic ]” f or la ck of sleep. Dr . Ma rt inez t est ifi

ed t hat , w hile Cat alla was in t he ho spit al, she co nsult ed w ith a
neur olo gist and a psychiat rist co ncer ning Cat alla’s re mark s t hat she ha d difficulty r ememberingNo. 1-09- 0517

45

t he eve nt s o f the incident and ha d difficulty slee ping. She t est ifi ed t hat t he neu ro log ist a nd t he ps y ch i atrist h ad pre scri be d m edi ca ti on d uri ng the cou rs e of Ca tal l a’ s h osp i tal sta y . Sh e di d n ot tes ti f y to the ne urol ogi st’ s a nd ps ych i atrist’ s d i agnos es . Ra

the r, she prov i de d on l y he r opi ni on t hat Cat alla suffer ed fr om a c onc uss ion. Moreover, we cannot say that def endan t was prejudi

ced by Dr. Martinez’ s m

edi cal testi m ony or fa i l ure to produc e her curriculum vitae . The State disclosed to defen dant the nam

es of Dr. Mart inez and ot her t reat ing phy sicians before t rial i

n respo nse to defendant’s in terro gator ie s. The State also i nf ormed def

endan t t hat it would c all Dr. Marti nez as a “m edi cal doctor” to testi f

y at tria l . The def endan t was i n pos ses sion of

Catal l a’s hosp i tal records be f ore tri al an d w asal l owe d to de

pos e D r. M arti

nez b ef ore s he wa s c al l ed asa w i tne ss . That d ep osi

ti on af f orded the def

en se the opportun

i ty to obtai

n D r. Marti

ne z’s qual i f i cations as a m

edi cal doctor, and al l of her f in din gs and opi

nions. See Kim v. Evanston Hospital , 240 Ill . App. 3d 881, 890 (1 992 ) ( “[A] n op po sing pa rt y will not be su rp rised when a t re at ing physician t est ifi es, beca use t he witness was i

ni tiall y ass ociated with the issues i n l itigation f or r easons ot her than the sole purpo se of re nder ing an op ini

on at tr ial.”); People

v. Smith , 236 Ill . App. 3d 35, 42 (1992) (holdi ng that because testify

in g doct or was a t reating physici an, hi s test im

ony sh ould not have come as a surpri se to the

def endan t). Defe ndan t also clai ms that he i s enti

tled to a new trial

because the Stat e comm

itted a di scovery vi ola tion by f ail i ng to produc e Dr. M arti

ne z’s medi cal reports s en

t to Lin col n Pa rk Hospi tal conc ern i ng C atal l a’s i na bi l i ty to return

to work. Def

endan t argues that ev en i f Dr. Ma rti n ez i s n ot co n si dere d a n ex pert f or di sc ov er

y pu rp ose s, th e S tate

wa s sti ll re qui re d toNo. 1-09- 0517

46

pro duce the medical

repo rts because Rule 412 appli es to all witness, not just expert s. Ill . S. Ct . R. 41 2( a) (i ) (e f f . M ar . 1, 20 01 ) (r

eq ui ri n g th e S tate , up on

wri tten m oti on of de f ense cou n se l , to dis clo se t he na mes o f pe r so ns w ho m t he St at e in t en ds t o ca ll as wit ne ss es , t o ge t he rwit h t he ir relevant wr itte n or r eco rded stat ements). How ever, w hen a defendant challenges a trial cour t’s rul i ng on a pur porte d di sc ove ry vi ol ati on, wef i rs t de term

i ne whether a

di sc ove ry vi ol ati on occurre d. People v. Hood, 213 Il l . 2d 244 , 256 (2 004). He r e, we ca nno t find t ha t a d isc o ve ry vio lat io n o cc ur r ed
. T he St at e a r gu ed at t r ial t ha t it did n ot have the m

edi cal report s i n i ts possessi on. See Ill . S. Ct. R. 412(a) (eff . Mar. 1, 2001) (re qui ri ng the State to di sc l ose

material an d i nf orm ati on w i thi n i ts “ pos se ss i on or

con trol”). A l so, there is no evi dence that the State had those medi cal report s i n i ts possessi on or co ntrol or that th e h osp i tal su pp l i ed th em to th e S tate . In

addi ti on , the S tate

di d n ot re l y on th e m ed i ca l repor ts in their case-in-chief

, ra ther , t he medical repo rt s were first d iscovered e xistin g dur ing defendant’s
cross-exam

in ation of Dr. Martin

ez. E ve n if w e fo un d t ha t a d isc o ve ry vio lat io n ha d o cc ur r ed , we ca nno t sa y t ha t a n ew t r ial is
wa rr an t ed
. While co mplia nc e w it h t he dis co ve ry re qu ire men t s is man da t o ry, t he failu r e t o co mply with thes e requirem

ents does not require a reversa l a bsen t a showin

g of surpri se or undue prej udi ce. People v. Robinson , 1 57 I ll. 2d 6 8, 78 ( 199 3) . As no t ed, t he bur den o f show ing pr eju dic e is up o n t he de fen da nt , an d t he failu r e t o r eq ue st a c o nt inu an ce is a r ele va nt fac t o rin deter m i n i n g w h eth er th e te sti mon y at iss ue actual l y su rp ri se d or un dul y pr ej udi ce d th

e def en da n t. Robinson , 157 Ill . 2d at 78. “A def endan t cannot request o nl

y the most drastic m

easures, such

as ei ther an i mm edi ate mi strial

or t he total excl

usi on of testim

ony b y a witne ss, and then

on appealNo. 1-09- 0517

47

argue that he i s enti

tled to a new trial

when these requests are not granted.” Robinson , 157 Ill . 2d at 7 8-7 9; se e al so People v. Foster , 76 Ill . 2d 365, 384 (1979) (“[If an un dis cl osed] stat em

ent was so ea r t hsh ak ing as t o r eq uir e c o mple t e r eo r ga niz at io n o f t he de fen da nt ’s ca se , co un se l sho uld have asked f

or a continuanc e or recess for that purpose [when the reports were discovered as exi stin g] ***. His f

ai lure to do so is persuasi ve ev ide nce that the prej udic e here al le ged was i

n f act triv i al .”). In the ca se a

t bar, d ef endan t stated at the

sideb ar conf

eren ce that he wassurpri sed

by Dr. Mart inez’s test im

ony that she pro vided medi cal repo rt s to the ho spital concer nin g Cat all a’s tre atm en t f oll owi n g h er disch arge . H owev er , de f en da n t di d n ot re qu est a c on

ti n ua n ce or re ce ss to o bt ain t he m t o de t er mine t he ir imp o r t an ce . I nst ea d, he mo ve d imme dia t ely fo ra mis t r ial. In a ddi tion , our rev

i ew of the re cord sh

ows tha t def endan t was n ot prej udiced b

y Dr. Ma rti n ez ’s testi mon y con cern i n g th e ex i ste n ce of med i ca l repor ts. The S tate

di sc l ose d to de fen da nt t he na me o f Dr
. Ma r t ine z a nd t he na mes o f o t he rt r ea t ing ph ysic ian s be fo r e t r ial in resp onse to def endan t’s i nterroga torie s. The State al

so i nf orme d def

endan t that i t woul d cal

l Dr. Mart inez as a “m

edical doct or ” to test if

y at tr ial . The d efendant was in posse ssion of Cat all a’s hosp i tal records be f ore tri al and def endan t’s cross-exa

m i na tion shows tha

t he w as a ware that Dr. Mar t inez co nt inued t o t re at Cat alla follow ing her discha rg e fro m the ho spit al. We c anno t find any prejudi ce as a resul

t o f an y f ai lure to produce medical report s i n the record of thi s case.
2. Ir re levant Te st imony We next co nsider defendant’s claim that Dr. Mart inez’s test im ony concer nin

g Cat all a’sNo. 1-09- 0517

48

“psy chol ogical

harm, the medi

cations presc

rib ed by ot her [phy

si ci ans], and the

purpose of such
me dic ation” was i

rrelev ant and “in

tended to evoke t he sy

mpa thies of the j ury.” In order to pro perly

preserve any al

leged error for appell

ate re view, “a defendan

t must both speci fi

cally obje ct at t rial

and rai se the i ssue agai

n i n a posttrial

motion.” People v. Woods , 214 Ill. 2d 4 55, 470 (20 05) ; People v. Enoch , 122 Il l . 2d 176 , 186 (1 988). Defendant do es not argu e that he preser ved this erro r. O ur r eview of Dr. Mar tinez’s testim ony a t t rial shows that defen

dant did n ot obje ct concerni

ng psy chol ogical

harm to Catall a, the medi ca ti ons pre scri be d to C atal l a, or

the pur pos e of such medi ca ti ons . De f en da nt a l so d i d n ot raise the i ssue in

hi s post trial m

ot ion but now raises this

clai m f or t he f irst time on appeal . Thus, defendan t fail ed to preserve this error for review and h as forfei ted t hose issues b efore us. De f en da nt a l so f ai l s to re que st u s to re

vi ew thi s c l ai m f or pl ai n e rror. Th e p l ai

n- err or do ct r ine allo ws a r ev iew ing co ur t t o r ea ch an un pr es er ve d e rr o rwh en eit he r : ( 1) t he ev ide nc e in the case is cl

osely balanced, regard less of

the seriousness of the erro r, o r (2) t he error is so
ser iou s t hat t he de fendant was denied a su bst ant ial right , r ega rd less o f the clos enes s o f the
evi den ce. People v. Herron , 21 5 I ll. 2 d 1 67 , 17 8- 79 ( 20 05 )
. Whe n a de fen da nt fails t o r eq ue st t his court to revi

ew a c l ai m und er pl ai n error, he

agai n f orfe i ts the i ssue. People v. Hillier , 237 Ill . 2d 539, 545 (2010) (“A def

endan t who fai ls to argue for pl ai

n-error review obv

iousl y c ann ot me et his burden o f persu asion. ”); People v. Nieves , 192 Il l . 2d 487 , 502-0 3 (200 0).

3. H ea rs ay Sta tem en ts We next co nsider defend ant ’s claim tha t Dr . Ma rt inez t est ifi ed c onc er ning medicat ionsNo. 1-09- 0517

49

namel y, “Namen

da, E ff exor , and ‘t ranscent ’ [ sic ] or Tranxene” prescribed b y “ot her doct ors”
constitutes

i nadm i ssi bl e hears ay . As prev iousl y n ot ed, in order t o pro perly

preserve an

y a ll eged error for appell

ate revie w, “ade fen da nt mus t bo t h sp ec ifica lly o bje ct at t r ial and rai se the i ssue aga

i n i n a posttri al motion .” (Em phasi s ad ded). Woods , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 470 ; Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d at 186. Defe ndan t argues that he preserved thi s clai m f or review an

d points to a sideb ar co nfere nce w hen de fense c ou nsel ra ised he r c onc er n t hat Dr . Ma rt inez wo uld t est ify co ncer ning

“posttra um ati c stre ss wh en sh e h as n o qual i f i ca ti on s to tal

k a b out i t.”De f en da n t f ur th er poi n ts to his po st t rial mot ion which s t at ed t hat “[t ]he co ur t er re d in allowing hear say t est imony into t he tria l .” How ever, our rev

i ew of Dr. Ma rti nez’ s te sti mony at tri al sh owstha t de f en da nt d i d n ot objec t when D r. Mar t inez t est ifi ed t hat a neu ro log ist p re scr ibed Na menda t o C at alla. D efenda nt al so did not obj ect wh

en Dr. Ma rtin ez testif i ed th at a psy

chi atri st pres cri

be d Cata l l a Ef f ex or. Defend ant furt her did no t objec t when D r. Mar t inez t est ifi ed t hat “[Ca t alla] wa s given t ra nsce nt [ sic ] (phoneti

c).” Th us, de f endan t fa i l ed to pres erve this error. Defend ant also fails to ask us t o r eview t his claim f or plain er ro r. The plain-e rr or do ct rine allo ws a r ev iew ing co ur t t o r ea ch an un pr es er ve d e rr o rwh en eit he r : ( 1) t he ev ide nc e in t he ca se is clos ely balanced , r ega rd less o f the ser iou sness of t he er ro r, or (2 ) t he er ro r is so ser iou s t hat t he defen dant was deni

ed a subs tantial righ t, regardless of the cl

oseness of

the evi dence. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 178-79. As n

ot ed, when a

defen dant fai ls to request this court to review a clai m un der plai n error, he

f orfe i ts the i ssue. Hillier , 23 7 Il

l . 2d at 5 45 ( “ A

de f en da nt w ho f ai l s to a rgue f orNo. 1-09- 0517

50

plain-err or review o bviously cannot meet his bur den o f persu asion. ”); Nieves , 192 Ill . 2d at 502- 03 (20 00). Hea rsa y is a st at ement t hat is offer ed t o p ro ve t he t ru t h of t he mat t er asse rt ed, made by the decl aran t at a tim e wh en he or sh e was

not testif y i ng a t trial
. People v. Dun more , 389 Ill . App. 3d 10 95 , 11 06 ( 20 09 )
. Ho we ve r , a t r ea t ing med ica l ph ysic ian ca n t es t ify t o t ha t wh ich is in
med i ca l re cordscon

cern i n g th e p ati en t’s med i ca l h i sto ry, w

h i ch i s a dm i ss i b l e a s a n ex ce pti on to the h ears ay rule. Herron v. Anderson , 2 54 I ll. App. 3d 3 65, 377 (1 993 ). In a ddit ion, t he
me dic ation that a patien

t is taki ng is “rel ia ble and adm

is si ble as an e

xcepti on to the hearsay

rule.” Herron , 254 Ill. App. 3d at 377. Thus, e ven i f defendant did not forfeit t his i ssue, D r. Ma rt inez’s testim ony was properly

allowed. 4. F oun da ti on La st, we con si der d ef en da n t’s cl ai m th at th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n al l owi n g D r. M ar

ti n ez to testi f y con cern i n g th e m ed i ca ti on s N am

en da , Ef f ex or, a n d “ tra n sc en t [ sic ] ” p r es cr ibe d t o Ca t alla by “other docto rs,” or t he reasons such m edi cations were pres crib ed becaus e the State did not lay a proper f ounda tion that Dr. M arti

ne z was “q ual i f i ed to testi f

y ab out such

matters.” Ev

i den tia ry rul i ng s a re w i thi n th e tri al cou rt’ s s oun d di screti on a nd wi l l not b e re ve rs ed ab sent a cl ea r ab us e of di scre tion
. People v. Wheeler

, 226 Il l . 2d 92, 1 32 (20 07). Fi rst, we f i nd d ef endan t’s c l ai m that Dr. M arti

ne z provi ded re asons the

medi cations were pr esc ribed t o C at alla misstat es t he fact s. As pr eviou sly not ed, Dr . Ma rt inez did no t t est ify t o t he neurologist’s and psych

iatrist’s di agnoses or pro vi de reasons why Catall

a was prescribed those
medi cations.No. 1-09- 0517

51

Next, in order t o pro perly

preserve the al

le ged error t hat the State fail ed to lay a proper foundation for Dr. Martinez testi mony concerni ng the m edi cations f

or appellate revie

w, “def endan t mu st both

spe ci f i cal l y obj ect at tri al

and raise the i ssue aga

i n i n a posttri al motion .” Woods , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 470 ; Enoch , 122 Il l . 2d at 18 6. Our revi ew of Dr. Martin ez’s testim

ony a t t rial shows that defen

dant did n ot obje ct when Dr. Mart in

ez test if ied that “Nameda is for kind of i ncrease of the mem

ory, t hi s and that, because she coul d hardl y rem em ber.” Def endan t also did not o bj ect when Dr. Martin ez testif ie d that Ca tal l a w as pr es cri b e a n oth er med i ca ti on , “ tra n sc en t [ sic ] (phonetic), some

thin g to relax, li

ke a chlor ase pt ic, yo u kno w, like a Va lium, so mething like t hat .” Defend ant failed t o p re ser ve t he
er rors con cern i n g N am eda a n d “ tra n sc en t [ sic ]” and thus, the errors are forfei ted. The trial transcript al so shows that defen dant did n ot obje ct when Dr. Martin ez testif ie d t ha t “[ t he ps ychia t r ist ] st ar t ed he ro n E ffex o r ” w hic h D r . Ma r t ine z t he n e xp laine d, “is lik e a lit t le l i ke a s tim ulan t.” Thu s, tha

t error i s al

so f orfe i ted. How ev er , the tr i al tra n scri pt does sh ow th at def en da n t ob j ected wh en th e S tate spe ci f i cal l y ask ed Dr. Marti

ne z, “Wh at does [Ef

f ex or] actual

l y do?” The tria l court al l owed Dr. Ma r t ine z t o t es t ify o ve rde fen da nt ’s o bje ct io n, “if sh e k no ws . ” E ve n if d efe nd an t pr es er ve d t his error, we c an

not say that the State f ail ed to l ay

a proper f ounda tion f or thi s testi

mony . As prev iousl y n ot ed, Dr. Martinez testif

ie d at tr ia l that sh e was Catalla ’s treating m edi cal physician while Cat alla was in t he ho spit al follow ing t he physical alt er cat ion wit h defend ant . S he
wa s n ot tes ti f y i n g a s a n ex pert w i tn es s. A s p ar

t of h er tre atm en t, D r. M ar

ti n ez re f er re d C ata l l a to a p sy ch i atri st, w ho pres cri be d Ef f exor f ol l owi ng tha t con sul tati on. Ef f exor wa s th

uspa rt ofNo. 1-09- 0517

52

Ca tal l a’ s m edi cal hi story an d D r. M arti

nez w oul d hav e p ers ona l kn owl edgeof the ef f ec ts of known m edi cation. See Atkins v. Thapedi , 166 Ill . App. 3d 471, 475 (1988) (citin g Waterford v. Hallow ay , 14 2 I ll. A pp . 3d 66 8 ( 19 86 ) ) ( t es t imo ny o f a t r ea t ing ph ysic ian may be o ffer ed o nly in regar d to factual

matters of

whi ch the d octor has pers onal knowl edge ). In a

ddi tion , the tri

al court allowed Dr. Martin

ez to t estif

y c oncerni

ng the ef fects of Ef

fex or if she kn ew. Accordin

gly , we canno t say t hat t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion in allow ing Dr . Ma rt inez t o t est ify co ncer ning the e f f ects of Ef f ex or. CONCLUSION Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns , we af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Af fi rmed.