No. 3–06–0555

______________________________________________________________________________ File d February

20, 2009 IN THE A

PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2009 THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS, ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) f or th e 1 2th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, ) Will Co un t y, I llino is ) v. ) No. 05–CM–1754 ) JAMES T. JOHNSON, ) Ho no r ab le De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Edwin Grabiec ) Jud ge, Pr esiding

______________________________________________________________________________ PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEO’ BR

IEN de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ Defend ant Jam

es John son was fou nd

guilt y of cr imi

nal sexu al abus e fo llowing a ju ry t rial and sentence d to a -one- year t erm of conditional di scharge. He appeals, co nt ending t hat t he tr ial cou rt ’s ex par tecom m un i ca ti on wi th th e j ur y de pri v ed h i m of h i s c on sti tuti on al ri gh ts to b e p re se

n t an d to ha ve coun sel at al l cri tic al stage s i n the proce edi

ngs . We rev erse his con vi cti on an d rem and. FA CTS In June 2005, Johnson was ch arged by crim in al compl ai nt with the of

fen se of cri mi nal sexual abuse. 720 ILC S 5 /1 2- 15( c) (Wes t 200 4) . T he co mplaintalle ged that Joh ns on c om m i tted a n a ct of sexual pe ne trati on wit h A.C. , w ho w as a t least 13 yea rs o f age bu t unde r 1 7 year s o f age w hen t he act wa s c o mmit t ed , in t ha t Jo hns o n p lac ed his p en is in A.C.’s v agi na, and J ohns on w as less t han five years old er tha n A .C. A trial comm enced i n Septemb er 2005 an d r es ul t ed in a mist r ial b as ed o n a de ad lo ck ed ju ry.2

A second trial

ensued i n A pril 2006. A.C. testifi

ed that her date of bi

rth was Novem

ber 12, 1990, and t hat she ha d bee n dat ing Jo hnso n since Au gust 2004. On Ma y 23, 200 5, A .C. an

d J ohn son ski pped school an d went to Jo hns on’s h

ouse, where they

watched telev

is ion. A fter Johnso n’s mother left fo rwo r k, A. C. an d J o hns o n e ng ag ed in se xu al i nterc ours e. T he sex was co nsensual. A.C.’s pa re n ts arriv ed at Johnson’s

home thereafter

and sh e would n ot le t t hem in to the house. A.C. and Joh ns on wen t to vi si t some f ri ends a nd r eturned to John

son’ s house two or thre e hours l ater. An off ic er arrived at Johnso n’s house, remove d A.C. and returned h er to her parents’ home. Later , A.C. and her m

ot her wen

t t o t he polic e station and s poke with Lockpo r t po li ce o ffi cer Brian P helan. A.C.’s mother told the off ic er that A.C. and Johns on had en gaged i n sex an d A.C. descri

bed that Johnson put hi

s penis i n he r vagi na. A.C. was thereaf

ter t aken to the hospital

where tests reveal

ed that she w as p re gnant . Lo ckp or t det ect ive Wil liam Sheehan t est ifi

ed t hat he me

t wi th J ohn son on May 27, 2005. Johnson told hi m that he and A .C. were boyf

rien d and girl fri end an d he adm itted ha vi ng s ex wi th her on M ay

23, 200 5. He was 1 7 y

ears old
. The de fen se re sted wi

thout pres en

tin g an y wi tnes ses . Fol

l owi ng d el i berati ons, th

e j ury returneda gui lty

verdict. After excusi

ng the j ury, the trial

court advi sed the parties of a note it had recei ved f rom th e j ur y appr ox i mate l y 30 or 4 0 m

i n ute s e arl i er

wh i ch sta ted , “ [o]u r d ec i si on i s 1 1 to 1. We n eed advise[ sic ]/hel

p.” The court indi

cated on the note t hat its respons e was to “conti nue del i berati ng.” Nei ther d ef en se c ouns el

nor the State raised

an y obj ections. Joh ns on fi le d a postt rial

motion i n wh ic h he argued that the tr ia

l c ourt erredin

permi tt in g A.C. to testi f y wi thout proper f

ounda tion that sh e was pregn an t. Fo llowing a hea ring o n t he mot ion, t he trial court deni

ed i t. At t he sen

tenci ng he arin g, the trial court sentence d

Joh ns on to a one-y ear term of co ndit ional disc har ge. In a ddit ion, t he co ur t or der ed J ohns on t o r egist er as a sexu al off en der3

pur sua nt t o t he Sex Of

fen der Regi stration Act. 730 ILCS 150/1 et seq . (W es t 200 4). Joh

ns on su bse qu en t ly

renewed a constitutional

chal le nge to the sexual

of f en de r re gi stra

ti on re quir ement s. T he trial co ur t denied t he mot ion. Jo hnso n follow ed w ith t he inst ant app eal. We reversed an d reman ded t he cause, f

in din g that t he ex par

tecom m uni cation b etween the tri al

courtand the j ury s erved

t o d eny Joh ns on a f ai r tri al
. Peop l e v . Joh

ns on , 383 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 28 1, 284, 8 90 N.E.2 d 668, 6 70 (20 08). In
so fi ndi ng, we determi

ned t hat t he Stat e bore t he burden of establ ish in g that the erro r was harml ess beyond a rea sona

bl e doubt. Joh

ns on , 383 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 284, 890

N.E.2d a

t 670. The Sta

te appe aled. The sup re me co ur t denied t he St at e’s p et itio n for leave to appeal , but i n i ts sup ervi sory au t ho r it y, di

rected thi s c ourt to v

ac atei ts p riorj udg

men t an d re con si de r i t i n l i gh t of t he rule t ha t in
a pl ai n er ror a n al y sis, th e bur den

of p ersuasi

on i s on th

e def endan t. Peop l e v . Joh

ns on , 22 9 I ll. 2d681, 896 N.E.2d 1060 ( 2008). On reconsideration, we f in d that Johnson ha s car ried t he burden of p ersuasi

on, an d we re verse a nd r em and. AN AL YSIS Th e i ss ueon a ppe al i s w he the r J ohn son was denied his substantial rights by the tr ial cou rt ’s
ex parte co mmunicatio n wit h t he jury. Johnson argues that t he trial

court erred in

conductin

g the ex parte com m un i ca ti on o ut sid e t he pr es en ce o f him o rhis at t o rne y, an ac t io n w hic h se r ve d t o de ny him his ri ght to be pres en t and his ri ght to coun sel

at al l cri tic al stage s of the proceed

i ngs . We begi n our disc ussion by addressi ng the S tat e’ s a r gu men t t ha t Jo hns o n ha s w aiv ed t his is sue by fai li ng to o bj ect in

the trial cour t o r to raise i

t in hi s post trial m

ot ion. The Stat e also argues that plain er ro r r eview is no t war ra nt ed u nder t he inst ant circu msta nces . Ac co rd ing t o t he St at e, t he evi dence is not clos ely balanced nor is the alleged er ro r so egr egio us a s t o ha ve de nied Jo hnso n a fair tria l . We di sag ree.4

Pu rsu ant to Supreme C ourt Rul e 615(a), we may take notice o f plain er

rors or d ef ec ts affect ingsubst ant ial rights. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615 (a) ; People v . Oden , 261 Ill . App. 3d 41, 48, 633 N.E. 2d 1385, 1391 (1994). Jury del ib erations are a

critical stage of trial

aff ectin g substantial

righ ts whi ch requi re that t he defen

dant has a ri gh t to b e p re se

n t an d p ar ti ci pa te in per so n and by co unse l in any
co mmunicatio ns between the tri al court an d the j ury . Peo ple v. Kl iner , 185 Ill . 2d 81, 162, 705 N.E.2d 850, 890 (1998). Under the plai n error doct rin

e, a reviewi

ng court may

rea ch a f orf ei ted or wai ved error af f ecti ng s ubs tantial ri ghts i n two ci rcum stan ces . Peo plev. He rron , 215 Ill . 2d 167, 177, 830 N .E.2d 467 , 474 (2 005). A court wil l c o nsid er pla in e rr o rwh en t he ev ide nc e is clo se ly bal anced or when the error is so seri ous t hat it impact s t he inte gr ity o f the j udicial proces s. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 178-79, 830 N.E.2d at 475. Under t he se co nd ca t ego ry, t he de fendant must pr ove that the re waspl ai n e rror a nd tha t the err orwas so seri ous it affec t ed t he fairne ss o f his or her t rial and chal l enged the i

nteg ri ty of the j udicial

proces s. Herron , 215 Il

l . 2d at 18 7, 830 N .E.2d at 47 9-80. Because j ury

deliber at ions invo lve subst ant ial right s which a ffect t he inte gr ity o f the judi ci al pro cess, we w ill

add re ss Jo hnso n’s ar gument under the s econ d prong of

the p l ai n e rror rule. Be f

ore we begi n our anal

ysi s, however, we must determine wh o carr ies the burden of persuasion as t o prejudi ce. Jo hnso n asse rt s t hat beca use t he er ro r a t issue c onc er ns ex par tecomm unication b etween t he trial court and j ury, i

t is the State’s burden

to prove that any e

rror was h ar

m l es s. In con tra st, t he Sta te co nt ends t hat unde r t he plain er ro r d oc t rine, t he b urden i s on Joh n son to establ is h prej udic e. In l i gh t of th e s up re m e c our t’s di re cti v e iss ue d i n th i s c as e, we

ag re e wi th t he St at e’s p os itio n and pl ace the b urden of p ersuasi

on on J ohn son. Joh ns on reli es on several c ases, i

ncl udin g Peo ple v. Bryant , 176 Ill . App. 3d 809, 531 N.E.2d 849 (1988 ), Peo ple v. Chi lds , 159 Ill . 2d 217, 636 N.E. 2d 534 (1994), and Pe o ple v. Comage , 3035

I ll. App. 3d 2 69, 709N.E .2d 244 (19 99) , f orthe propo si

tion that it i s the State’s burden to show that t he err orwas har mless when ex par teco mmunicatio n bet wee n judg e and jury is at issue. In Chi lds , t he defen dant obje cted to the ex par tecom m uni cation, a cri

tic al di sti ngu i sh i ng f act. Chi lds , 15 9 I ll. 2d at 226-27, 636 N. E.2d at 538 . I n Bryant , the p arti es w ereuncl ear as to whether the defen dant was pr ese nt when t he t rial co ur t add re ssed t he jur y’s not e and t her e wa s no ind ica t io n in the record t hat t he defend ant objec t ed. In Comage , a ltho ugh t he de fendant did no t objec t t o t he ex part e com m un i ca ti on between the j udge an d ju ry, t he co ur t fo un d t he wa ive rrule inapplicable be cau se t he ba sis for t he obj ection wa s the j udge ’scond

uct. Comage , 303 Ill . App. 3d at 272-73, 709 N. E.2d at 247. While t he cas es c ited by Joh ns on s eem

i ngl y su ppor t hi s a ss erti on th at the b urden of pe rs ua si on i s on th e S tate when the is sue in

volves ex par

teco mmunicatio n, t he ca ses w er e de cided befo re t he de ci si on in Herron , w her e t he suprem e court expressly

dif feren tiated between plai

n error and harm

less
err orand cl arif ie d the burden of

persuasion. The Herron

courtstated t ha t t he pla in e rr o ran alys is appl i es wh er e th e def en da n t f ai l ed to ma ke a tim el y obj ection an

d that t he bu r de n o f pe r su as io n is
on the def endan t to establ

i sh prej udice. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 181-82, 830 N.E.2d at 476-77. Harmless error ap plies where t he de f en da nt h asti mel y obj ec ted an d the Sta te b ea rs the bu rde n of pe rs ua si on to prove bey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt that t he r esu lt w ou ld have be en t he sa me witho ut t he
error. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 181-82, 830 N.E.2d at 476-77, quot in g Peo ple v. Th

urow , 203 Ill . 2d 352, 363, 786 N.E .2d 1019 , 1025 ( 2003). As there is n o dispute in the in

stant case t ha t Jo hns o n d id not m ake a ti mel y obj ec ti on or

i nc l ude the i ss ueof ex parte co mmunicatio n in his pos t t rial mot ion,
our r ev iew is p ur su an t t o t he pla in erro r analy

sis an d it is J ohnson’s burden to est abl ish prej udice. We tur n n ow to t he su bst ant iveissue o f whet her Jo hnso n was denied his subst ant ial right s by6

t he tr ial cou rt ’s ex par

tecom m un i ca ti on wi th the jury. A cri

mi nal defen dant enj oys a cons

titutional right to appear

and partici

pate in person and b

y c ounsel at all proceedin

gs i nvol vi ng hi s subs tantial
r igh ts. U. S. Co nst ., amend. VI ; Ill. Co nst . 1 970 , a rt . I , § 8. This r ight affor ds a defend ant t he opp ortu n i ty to know what is occurr in g, make objections, and t ak e a pp r o pr iat e a ct io ns t o se cu r e h is ri gh ts and protect his def

ense. Chi lds , 159 Ill . 2d at 227, 636 N. E.2d at 538. Once a j ury h as begun to delib erate, an y co mmun ica t io n be t we en it an d t he t r ial c o ur t mus t be he ld in op en co ur t and in t he defendant’s pres ence. Ch il ds , 159 Ill . 2d at 227, 636 N. E.2d at 538. The f ai lure to do so may depri ve the def endan t of h i s su bstantial ri ghts
. Bryant , 176 Ill . App. 3d at 814, 531 N.E .2d at 852. Howev er, a j ury verdict wil

l n ot be set aside where n

o harm or prej udic e resul

ted from the ex par

te comm uni ca t ion. Kl

in er , 18 5 I ll. 2 d a t 16 2, 70 5 N . E . 2d at 89 0. T he ke y qu es t io n in d et er minin g prejudi ce is whether the def

endan t’s presence c ould ha

ve h ad an y ef f ec t on t he co mmunicatio n. Peop le v. Blal ock , 23 9 I l l . A pp . 3d 83 0, 8 41 , 60 7 N .E. 2d

64 5, 6 53 (1 99 3) . B ec au se th is i ssu e co ncer ns a question of law, our r evi ew is de no vo . People v . Chapm an , 194 Ill . 2d 186, 217, 743 N.E.2d 4 8, 68 (2 000). We f in d that Johnson ha s sustain ed hi s burden

and establ

is hed that the trial

cour t’s ex par

te com m un i ca ti on wi th th e j ury pre j udi ce d h i m . Joh ns on ’s ab senceat t his crit ical st age in the proceedin gs deni ed hi m di rect knowledge of w

hat was sai

d and done i

n response to the j ury’s que sti on an d d ep ri v ed h i m of th e op por tun i ty t o mak e o bject ions a nd t ake any act ions n ec es sa ry to sec ure h i s r i gh ts . The Sta

te spe cul ate s th

at the tri al cou rt wou l d h ave re f us ed a re que st b

y Joh ns on for a Pr im instr uct ion bec aus e o f the sho rt dur at ion t he jury had deliber at ed be for e se nding i ts n ote and because th e tr

i al cou rt f ai l ed to gi v e th e i n str uc ti on at J oh n son ’s f i rs t tri al . Th e S tate also p oi n ts out that Johnson ne

ver asked f

or a Pr im inst ruc t io n a t his fir st t r ial a nd , ba se d o n t he simila r ities7

between the fi rst and second trial

s, no prejudi

ce could b e sai d to hav e resul ted from the ex par

te co mmunicatio n. The St at e’s s pec ulat ion is unp er sua sive. J ohns on w as d epr ived o f his right t o be pr ese nt when the j ury note was present ed and we cannot guess what response he m ay have had to it
. Because the t rial

cour t’s ex par

tecom m un i ca ti on de pri v ed Joh n son of h i s c on sti tuti on al ri gh t to be pre sent a

t al l cri ti cal stage s of the proc ee di ng s a gai ns t hi m , we rev ers e h i s c onv i cti on and reman

d. Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, t he judg ment o f the ci rcu i t cou rt of Will Co unt y is rever sed and the c aus e rem

anded. Reversed a

nd rem anded. CA RTER a nd L YTTON, J

J., con cur.