Docket No . 108253.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STA TE OF IL LINO IS, Ap

pel l an t, v. JA MES T. JOH NSON , Ap

pel l ee.
Opinion filed October 21, 2010.

JUSTICE K

IL BR ID E de l i v ered th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Chi ef Jus t ice Fit zge ra ld and J ust ices T homas , G ar man, a nd Karmeier co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. Justice Bur ke d issent ed, wit h op inion, jo ined by Just ice Fr eeman.

OPINI ON

The is sue i

n thi s appea l i s wh et he rde fen da nt ’s fo r feit ur e o f his chal le ngeto the tr ial

cour t’s ex parte co mmun ic at ion sho uld be excused und er ei ther prong of

pl ai n-e rror anal y si s. The app el

l ate court deter mi ned t hat defend ant ’s claim was r eviewa ble unde r t he se co nd pr ong of the plai

n-error do ctrine b ecause the error was suf fi ci en tly seri ous to deny

hi m a fai r trial . 388 Ill . App. 3d

199, 203 (John

son I I ). Fo rthe rea sons th

at f ol l ow, w e re

ve rs e the a

ppe l l atecou

rt’ s j udgm en t.-2- I. BACKG

ROUND The Sta te ch arge d d ef

en da n t, James T . Jo hnso n, wit h one co unt of crim in al sexual abuse, a C lass A misdemean or ( 720 ILCS 5/12–15(c) (West 2004)), all egi ng that on May

23, 200 5, defend ant kn o win gly

h ad sex ual i n tercou rs e wi th t he vi ctim, A.C., when s

he was between 13 and 17 y

ears old, an

d defen dant was less than

5 ye ar s older t han A. C. Defend ant ’s first jury t rial in the ci rcui t court o f Will Cou n ty resul ted in a deadl ocked j ury, an d the court decl ared a
m i stri al . The

State then retrie d def

endan t. At de f endan t’s s econ d j ury tria l , A.C . testi f

i ed th at she was

born
on No vember 1 2, 199 0, and d efenda nt was born on March 29, 1988. On th e date of th e i n ci den t, May 23, 2005, A.C. was 14 yea rs o ld and had be en da ti ng de f en da nt, wh o wa s 1 7 y

ea rs ol d, for les s t han o ne year. Altho ug hi t w asa re gul ar s ch ool da y , A .C. di d n ot rep ort f

or school t hat mor ning. I nst ead , A. C. went t o d efenda nt ’s ho use and defend ant cal

l ed h er sc hool to re po r t fals ely she was sick. A.C. and defend ant wa

tched tel ev i si on tog ether u

nti l de f en da nt’ s m othe r lef t f or work. Af ter def endan t’s m other de parted, A .C . and d efen

dant had sexual in tercour se. Later, A .C. he ard

he r m othe r kn ock i ng on th e f ron t door of defendant’s hou se. Rat her t han ans wer ing t he do or , A. C. and def en dant went t o a se cond- sto ry back ro om and waited for A.C. ’s mother to leave. L ess than an h our la ter, A.C. heard her

mot her and father return to defen

dant’s h ouse. A. C. an d d efe nd an t ag ain did not re spo nd and wai ted for her parents to leave. A .C .’ s f ath er re tur n ed to t he ho us e a se co nd t ime, but left af ter re ce i vi ng no r es pon se f rom anyone inside. T her eaft er , A. C. and d efend ant left an d w en t to a fri end’s house, stayi

ng there f or t wo or t hre e ho ur s befo re re t ur ning to def endan t’s h ouse. Laterthat eveni

ng, at approxim

ately 5: 30 p .m., a poli

ce off ic er arriv ed at defen dant’s h ouse lookin g fo r A. C. A.C. left w ith t he off i cer, who drove her

to he r pa ren ts’ hom e. A .C. ’s mothe r th en took her to the po li

ce stat ion, where A.C. to ld off icers sh e had se xua l in terco urse wi

th defendan t t hat mornin

g. A.C. al so went to a hospi tal f or a n ex am i n ati on an d l ate r lea rned th at sh e w as

pr eg n an t. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, A. C. t est ifi ed t hat she vo lun

tar il y h ad in terco urse with de fen

dant and h

e nev er force d h er

to do any

thin g.-3- A.C. report ed

she ca r ed fo rde fen da nt at t he t ime and sh e contin ued to care for hi

m a fter the i nci dent. A.C. al so stat ed

t hat he r p aren

ts were angry at her and def

endan t, and they ref

u sed to let A.C. see def endan t. The St at e next called Lo ckp or t po lice det ect ive Wil liam Sheehan, who in terviewe d d ef

endan t at t he polic e departmen t. During that in terview, de f

en da n t ad m i tted h av i n g s ex ual i n tercou rs e wi th A.C. on May 23, 200 5. The St at e intr od uce d de fendant ’s birt h cer t ifi cat e and thenr es t ed it s c as e a ga inst de fen da nt

. T he de fen se r es t ed wit hou t pres en tin g an y evi den ce. Fo llowing clo si

ng arg um en ts, th e j ury f oun d de f en da nt g ui l ty of crim in al sex ual ab us e. A f te r dis mis si

ng the j urors, t he trial

judge
e xpl ai ned to the parties a n

ot e he recei

ved f rom the j ury du

r ing it s deli berations, as foll

ows: “Ap pr o ximat ely

30 minut es a go , 4 0 minu te s ag o, I
re ceive d a n ote, th

i s n ote[, ] f rom the j uror s. ‘ Ou

r de si ci on [ sic ] is 11 to 1, we need adv is e/hel p [ sic ].’ My

re sp on se to that was, ‘contin

ue delib erating.’ Th

is was not on th e n

ote wh en I rece i ve d i t, thi s wri tin g on the b otto m

here.” The writi ng on the b ot to m of

the note reference d by

the judge i ndicated, “W

e hav e one

not gui l ty w ho wi l l not change. 11 vot e guil ty.” Defens e co uns el r esp ond ed “o kay” t o t he infor matio n abo ut t he j ury n ote, b ut di d n ot obj ec t to the

tri al cou rt’ s r es pon se . Nor

di d de f en da nt r ai se a c l ai m base d on the j ury note i n h i s p osttri al moti on fo ra n ew t r ial. On direct appeal, however, defe ndan t challe nged the trial cou rt ’s
answer to the j ur y no t e, ar gu ing t ha t t he co ur t ’s r es po nse in defen dant’s abs en

ce den i ed h i s r i gh t to b e p re se

n t an d h i s r i gh t to counsel at a critica

l s tage in the pro ceedings. The State count ered that defend ant fo r feit ed his c laim by fa iling to pr es er ve it wit h a t imely obj ec ti on and p os t t rial mot ion. The St at e fur t her ar gue d de fendant could not demonstra

te plai n error to excu se h

i s f orfe i ture. Rejec t ingthe Stat e’s pl

ai n-error argum ent , the a

ppel l ate court reversed defendan t’s conviction, holdi

ng that t he trial court’s ex par te com m un i ca ti on wit h t he jury

depriv ed defen dant of his constitutional ri gh ts t o be pr ese nt and t o c ou nsel and the State f ai l ed to sh ow-4- def endan t was n ot prej udiced b

y the c ourt’s c omm

uni cation. People
v. Johnson , 383 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 28 1, 285 ( 2008)(

Johnson I

). Justice Cart er sp ec ially c o nc ur r ed , ag r ee ing t ha t de fen da nt ’s co nvic t io n sho uld be r eve rsed but co nt ending t hat t he co ur t sho uld have reviewed his claim f

or plain er ro r, wit h the bu rde n of pe rs ua si on on de f en da n t. Johnson I

, 383 Il l . A p p. 3d at 28 5 ( Ca r t er , J. , sp ec ially
conc urri ng)

. T his courtde ni

ed the State ’s pe ti ti on for l eave to appeal. In stead,
we i ssued a s

uperv i sory ord er di re cti n g th e a pp el l ate cou rt to v ac ate and “ rec ons i de r i

ts j udg men t, i n a publ i sh ed opi ni on , in li gh t of t he
rule that in a plai

n-erro r analy

sis, the burden of persuasion is on t he def endan t.” People v. Johnson , 229 Il l . 2d 681 (2008 ) (sup ervi sory order). On remand, t he appellate co urt again reversed d efendant’s convicti on, co ncl

uding that the t rial

cour t’s ex

parte re sp on se to t he jur y no t e d ep r ive d d efe nd an t o f his constitutional right t o be pr ese nt du r in g al l cri tic al procee di ngs

. John son I I , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 204

. Ac co r di ng ly, the appella

te court found that de fen dan t sa t isfie d h is burden u nder plai

n-erro r analy

sis to show t he trial court’s ex par te com m un i ca ti on wi th the j ury prej udiced h

i m

. John son I I , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 203. Thi s c ourt a

l l owe d the Sta

te’ s p eti ti on fo rlea ve t o ap pe al. 210 Ill . 2d R. 315.

II. AN AL YSIS The pri mary issue in t his case is whet her t he trial court ’s i mproper ex parte comm unication wi

th the jury about the note is rev

ie wabl e as pla in error. W hen, a s here, a

de f enda n t f ai ls to obje ct to an error at trial and includ e t he er ro r in a p os t t rial mot ion, hef or f ei ts ordi na ry appe l l ate rev

i ew of that error. People v. Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d 176, 186 (1988 ). Consequen

tly, as the parties agree, def endan t f orf ei ted , or pr o ce du r ally

defau lted , his cha llenge t o t he t r ial c our t’s ex par te com m un i ca ti on wi th th e j ur y ab out th e n ot e by faili

ng t o o bject and rai se h i s cl ai m i n a posttri al motion

. Unde r I lli nois’s plain-e rr or do ct rine, how ever , a re viewing court may cons ider a fo rfeit ed c laim when:

“(1) a cl ear or o bvi

ous error o ccurred

an d t he ev ide nc e is
so cl ose l y b al an ce d th at th e error al on e th re at ened t o t ip t he-5- scales of just ice ag ainst t he defend ant , r ega rd less o f the
s eriousness of the erro r, o r (2) a clear or o bvi ous erro r occurred and t hat er ro r is so ser iou s t hat it affec t ed t he fai rness of t he de f

en da n t’s trial an d c h al l en ge d th e i n teg ri ty of t he jud icial p ro ce ss , r eg ar dle ss o f t he s t re ngt h o f t h e evi den ce.” People

v. Piatkow

ski , 225 Il l . 2d 551 , 565 (2 007), ci ting People v. Herron , 215 Il l . 2d 167 , 186-8 7 (200 5). The do ct rine is int ende d t o e nsur e t hat a de fendant recei vesa fa ir t r ial, buti t does n ot guaran tee ev ery def endan t a perf ect tri al

. Herron , 215 Ill . 2dat 17 7. Ra t he rt ha n o pe r at ing as a g en er al s av ing s c lau se , it is construed as a nar ro w and lim ited exce pt ion t o t he typ i cal f orfe i ture rule app l i cab l e to unprese rve d cl ai m s. Herron , 215 Il

l . 2d at 17 7. A defend ant see king p lain-er ro r r evi e w hasthe bu rde n of pe rs ua si on to show the underl

yi ng f orfei ture should b e excus ed

. Herron , 21 5 I l l . 2d

at 1 87. Th e ul

tim ate que sti on of

wh ethe r a forfe ited cla im is r ev iew ab le as pla in e rr o ris a qu es t io n o f law t ha t is reviewed de novo
. People v. McLaurin , 23 5 I ll. 2d 478 , 485 (2 009). On appe al, the S tate

acknowl edges thatthe trial court erred when it re sp on de d to th

e jur y no t e wit hou t co nsult ing t he pa rt ies, c iting People v. Kliner , 185 Il

l . 2d 81 ( 1998) , People

v. McDonald

, 16 8 I ll. 2d 420 (1995), and People v. Chi lds , 159 Il l . 2d 217(1994 ). Nonetheless, the Stat e argue s that defe ndan t forfei ted appell ate revie w of that erro r by

fai li ng to o bj ect at tr ia

l a nd rai se the error in a posttrial
moti on. The State further argues that the forfei ted issue is not
r ev iew ab le as pla in e rr o rbe ca us e t he ev ide nc e o f de fen da nt ’s gu ilt
was not closel

y b al anced

an d the error was not ser iou s eno ugh t o d eny defend ant a fa ir

tri al . The Sta

te c onte nds th at the sub sta

nc e of the trial
cou rt ’s r es po nse t o “c o nt inu e d elibe r at ing ” w as ap pr o pr iat e a nd did
no t impa ct t he fair ne ss o f de fen da nt 's t r ial. Defend ant concedes h

e f orfeit ed his c laim, bu t ar gu es it is
r ev iew ab le under bot h pr ong s o f plain-er ro r a nalysis. De fendant argues the evi

dence is clo se ly b al

an ce d a nd the tri al cou rt’ s error in volv ed hi s subs tantial con sti tuti on al ri gh t to b e p re se

n t wi th counsel at al l cri ti ca l pr oce ed i n gs , i m pl i ca ti n g th e f un da men ta l fairness and i n teg ri ty of his tr ial. De fendant al so argues the substanc e of the trial
cou rt ’s co mmunicatio n is irre levant t o a plain- err or analysis. Alt er na t ive ly, defendan

t main tains a m

or e l en i en t sta nd ard of procedur al

de f aul t sh oul d a pp l y wh en , a s h er e, th e b as i s f

or th e-6- def endan t’s c l ai m i s the tria l j udge ’serrone ous con

duct. Because the St ate co ncedes that t he trial court’s ex par te com m un i ca ti on i n th i s ca se w as e

rror, thi s a ppe al f ocu se s on thetwopr ong test gove

rni ng a pl ai n-e rror anal y si s. See , e.g. , Piatkow

ski , 225 I ll. 2d at 56 5 ( o r di na r ily, t he fir st st ep in a pl ain

- er r o ran alys i s is det er mini ng whether a cl

ear and obv ious error occurred). Under t he fi rst prong, the defendant must show that t he evi dence was “so clo se ly bal an ced that t he error alone threatened to tip the scal es of j ustice agains t th e def en da n t, re ga rdl es s of th e seri ousness of the error.” Piatkow ski , 22 5 Ill . 2d at 565. As this c ourt has ex pla in ed, “[w]hen
err oroc cur s in a

clo se ca se , we will opt to ‘err o n the side of f airness , so as not t o convi ct an i

nnocen t person.’ ” Piatkow

ski , 225 Ill . 2d at 566, quot in

g Herron , 21 5 I ll. 2d a t 193 . T he que st ion o f whet her t he evi dence is c lo se ly

bal ance d is dist inct fr om a c hallenge t o t he suf fi ci ency of the evi den ce. Piatkow

ski , 225 Ill. 2d at 566 . D efenda nt was accused of c omm

ittin g crim in al sexual abus e by kno wingly having sexual in terco urse with A .C. when s he was between 13 an d 17 y ears ol d and h e was less than

5 ye ars older than

A.C

. See 720 ILCS 5/12– 15(c) (We st 2004 ). Here, it is und isput ed t hat on M ay 23, 200 5, t he vic t im, A.C., was 14 ye ars old, and def

endan t was 17 years

old. A .C. also te sti

f i ed f or the Stat e, expl

ai ni ng that she h

ad con se n sual sex ual i n tercou rs e wi th defend ant at his

home that day. Detective Sheeh an testif ie d that defend ant ad

m i tte d t o ha vin g i nt er co ur se wit h A. C. t ha t da y. Defend ant di

d n ot pre sent e

vi de nc e or w

i tne ss esi n h i s def en se , nor di d he testi f y
. We reject de fendant’s characterization of the e vi denceas clo se ly bal anced for t he pu rp os e o f plain- error an alys is. T o t he co nt r ar y, in
our view, t he stre

ng th of the evi dence is overwhel

mi ng. A.C. testif

ie d that she an

d defen dant had sex

ual in tercour se and def

endan t admi tt ed t he sa me to De te ct ive Shee han. Neit her A.C. ’s no r D et ect ive Sheehan’s t es t imo ny w as substantivel y i mpeached or ot herwise contested on t hat issue. In ad di ti on, t he ag es o f A.C. and d efenda nt were not d i spute d. A

cc or di ng ly, defend ant ’s fo rfeit ur e may not be
ex cus ed un

der the f i rst prong of

the p l ai n-e rror test. We n ext consider the s eco nd pro ng of plai n-erro r analy

sis,
re quir ing defendan t t o show t hat, despite forfeiture, t he error was “so seri ous that it aff

ected the fai

rness of [hi s] trial

and ch al l enge d t he-7- int eg ri ty of the judicial

pro cess, regard less of

the closeness of

th e evi den ce.” Piatkow

ski , 225 Ill . 2d at 565 . U nder t he se co nd pr ong , t he stren gth o f t he St at e’ s e vid en ce is im material because pr ejudice t o t he defend ant is

presum ed based on the im port ance of

the righ t inv olve d. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 187. T his court recently

consider ed a trial court ’s ex par te com m un i ca ti on wi th a j ury

und er a pl ai n-e rror anal ys is . See McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 496. T he McLaurin defend ant challenge d t he trial cour t’s discussion of se ve r al jur y no t es wit h c o un se l in defendant’s absen

ce, and the cour t’s

de cisi on to i n str uc t a b ai li f f to enter t he jur y ro om and t ell t he jur y to co nt inue de liberat ing. T he de f en da n t, however, did not o bj ect at trial and di d not raisehis c laims in a postt rial

motion, thus f

orfei ting rev ie wo n a pp ea l. McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 485. Bef ore re ject ing t he defendant’s ar gu men t t ha t his fo r feit ed cla im sho uld be rev

i ew ed aspl ai n e rror as a vi ol ati on of his subst ant ial right to be pr es en t , t his courtob se rved th at, “ al th oug h cri m i n al de f en da n ts have a ‘ gen eral

ri gh t t o be prese nt ’ at ever y sta ge o f the t rial, ‘ t he broad“ ri gh t to be presen

t at t rial ” i s not itself a s

ubstanti al righ t under t he Ill in ois Constitution.’ ” McLaurin , 235 Ill. 2d at 490 , q uo t ing People v. Bean , 1 37 I ll. 2d 6 5, 80- 81 ( 199 0) . I nst ead , t he r ight to be pr ese nt i s a

“ l es ser ri gh t” that i s i

nte nd ed to s ecurethe substan

tial ri gh ts of a defend ant , su ch as t he ri gh t to co nfro nt wit nesse s, t he r ight to pr ese nt a de fense, or t he r ight to an impar t ial jury. I n McLaurin , t he defend ant di

d n ot s h ow th

at a n y of th ose un derl y i n g sub sta n ti v e ri gh ts had be en vi ola ted. McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 491. Likewi se, t his court observed that “t he f

ederal ‘right o f presence’ is not itself an express constitutional

ri gh t” befo re simi

larly det er mini

ng that the de fendant’s federal righ t wa s n ot vi ola ted. McLaurin , 2 35 I ll. 2d a t 492 , q uo t ing Bean , 137 Il

l . 2d at 82 -83. T his court was not per sua ded by the d efenda nt ’s ar gument t hat he
was de ni ed an oppor tun i ty to prov i dehi s ow n a ns wers to t he j ury’s note, fi nding the defendant’s failure t o c hallenge t he su bst ance of t he trial judge ’s responses

signifi cant. Not in

g that a tr ia

l court hasbroad di scre ti on to re sp on d to a j ury

note indi catin g a deadlocked jury, we concl uded that the cou rt’ s r es pon se s to “

ke ep on delib erating wi

th an openmi nd” an d “keep o n delib erating” were properly cl ear, sim

ple , and not coercive. Thus, af ter reviewi

ng the record, t hi s co ur t fou nd-8- that t he def

endan t was not denied

a fair t rial by his absence fro m the di scu ssi on of the j ury notes. McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 491-93. T his co ur t also re

ject ed t he de fendant ’s ar gument , ba sed on t he dec isions in People

v. McDonald

, 168 Ill . 2d420 (1 995), and People
v. Childs , 159 I ll . 2d 217 ( 1994), that his me r e abs ence fro m the di scus si on of the j ury n

ot es requi red a new

t rial, r ega rd less o f the substanc e of t he ex par

teco mmunicatio n. R eco gnizing a defendant’s right to appe ar and pa r t icip at e in pe r so n a nd by co un se l at all proceedin gs invo lving his substantial righ ts, we nonethel

ess observ

ed that Childs and McDonald further hel

d that a de f en da nt wasnot entitled to a new tr ial based on e rr or s impact ing t hat right unless he
suf f er ed ac tual pr ej udi ce . Th

i s c our t also n oted th at b oth de f en da n ts in Childs and McDonald

pr o pe r ly pr es er ve d t he ir

cla ims of error, t hus
re quir ing the Stat e to show t hat

the e rrors were nonprej udic ia

l un der
a har mless-e rr or analysis. I n co nt ra st , t he McLaurindefen dant fai le d to preserve h

is cl ai m, an d, thu s, h e h ad the bu rde n of per sua sion in a pl ai n- err oran alys is. Ult imat ely, t his c o ur t co nc lu d ed t hat defend ant di d not sa tis f y his b urden

. McLaurin , 235 Il

l . 2d at 49 4-96. In our vi ew, McLaurin isdispo si tive on the

is sue of wh

ether defendant’s cla im in t his c as e is revi ew able as p lain err or unde r t he
se co nd pr o ng

. De fen da nt ar gu es t ha t his forfe ited cl ai m qua li fi es f or reviewas se co nd

- pr o ng pla in erro r because the t rial

cour t’s ex

parte response to t he j ury’ s note was an error serious enough

t o de ny him
a f ai r tri al , regar

dl ess of the su

bstanc e of

that com

m uni cation. I n McLaurin , however, we consi dered an almo st ide nt ica l ex par te response and c onc luded it d id no t deny t he defend an t a f ai r tri al f or purpos es of

pl ai n-e rror revi ew. McLaurin , 235 Il l . 2d at 49 1-93. Furtherm ore, de fen da nt is essen

tial ly arguin g that his r igh t t o a fa ir trial was per seim

pacted based so lel

y on the trial court’s ex par te com m un i ca ti on wit h t he ju ry. Defe

ndan t contends that t he sub stance of t he co mmun ica t io n is irre levant to a pl ai n-error anal

ys is . Al though t his co ur t histo rically req uire d a ne w t rial whene ver any ex parte com m un i ca ti on occurred be t we en t he t r ial j ud ge an d t he ju ry, regardless o f it s s ub st an ce , we ha ve ex pr es sly m ove d a wa y f rom such
a rule. See Childs , 159 Ill . 2dat 227 -2 8 ( det ailing “evolut ion” o f t his
cou rt ’s ha nd l i ng of ex par teco mmunicatio ns bet wee n t rial judg e and j ury ). In fac t , a s we explained in Childs , an ex par tecom m un i ca ti on now serv esasgrou

nds f or a n ew tri al onl y i f i t res ul ts i n i njury or-9- prejudi ce to the defe

ndan t. Ch ilds , 159 I ll . 2d at 227-28; see also McDonald

, 168 I ll. 2 d a t 46 0. Simp ly pu t , a n o np r eju dic ial ex par te com m un i ca ti on is in suf fi ci ent to impac

t the fairness of a defendant’s tria l

. Thus, as the St ate ar gues, when a defe ndan t forfei ts hi s chal le nge to a trial court ’s ex par

teco mmun ica t io n w it h t he jur y, it is ne ces sary to con si de r th e sub sta

nc e of that comm

unication to determin

e whether it constitutes

pl ai n error. Her e, as in McLaurin , the trial jud ge simp ly tol d th e j ur orsto “ con

ti n ue de l i b erati ng,” a clea r a nd no nco er cive response well wi

thin hi s di scretion. See McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 491 (no t ingthat “the trial

court has b

road discretion w

hen re sp on di n g to
a jury t hat claims to be de adlo cke d, altho ugh a ny resp ons e sho uld be clear, s i m pl e, an d not coerc i

ve ”). Af ter ca r efu lly

reviewi ng McLaurin , w e find no reas on to depa rt f ro m it s reasoning and si

mi larl y concl ude that the tr ial

cour t’s ex parte response to t he j ury

to “co nt inue de liberat ing” did no t deny de fe ndant a fai

r tr ial . Because t he error was not “so ser ious t h at i t aff ectedth e f

ai rnes s of th e def en da n t’s tr ial a nd cha llenged t he i n teg ri ty o f t he jud icia l pr o ce ss , r eg ar dle ss o f the clos enes s o f the
evi den ce,” i t i s n ot revi ew ab l e as

sec ond-prong p l ai

n error. Piatkow ski , 22 5 I l l . 2d

at 5 65 . H av

i n g d ete rm i n ed th at defen

dant’s forfe ited clai m does n ot quali f y f or pl ai n-e rro r rev ie w under ei

ther prong , we h

old that the re i s n o bas i s to exc

use i ts f orfe i ture. Nor are we persu aded by defendant’s alte rna t ive arg ument t hat t he f orfe i ture rule s

hould b e rela

xed b ecause the proced

u r al d efa ult in volv es t he t rial judg e’s c ond uct , c iting People v. Sprink le , 27 Ill . 2d 398, 400-0 1 (196 3). We r eje ct ed t his same ar gument in McLaurin , concl ud ingt he de fendant failed t o p re sent a su ffi cient ly compelling
re as on to j ustif y relaxi ng th e f orfe i ture rul e. McLaurin , 23 5 I ll. 2d at 489. More rece n tly, in

the context of dis cussi

ng Sprinkl

e , thi s court expl ai ned that excusi

ng f orfei ture based

on the trial

judge ’s conduct “is warranted when

the trial co ur t has o ver st epp ed it s au t hor ity in the presence of the j ury or when

counsel is eff ectivel y p rev en ted f rom objec t ingas a

ny obj ection woul

d ha ve ‘f al l en on de af ears .’ ” People
v. Hanson , No. 106566, slip op. at 33 (June 2 4, 201 0) , q uo t ing McLaurin , 235 Il

l . 2d at 48 8. Here, as we ha

ve al ready de t er mine d, th

e tri al cou rt di d n ot overstep its authority

by in structing the j ury to “contin ue1 The recor d does not di sclo se w

hat tim e th e j ury resu

me d d elibe ration s. The dock e t e nt ry from Septe mbe r 30 states co

urt was to resum

e at 9: 30 a. m. -10- del i berati ng.” A l thou gh de f en da nt m ay ha ve be en pre cl ude d f rom objec t ingt o t he t r ial c o ur t ’s init ial ex par teco mm uni ca t io n w he n it
was issued beca use he wa s no t pr es en t , he did h av e th e op por tun i ty to obje ct when

the court la

ter inf ormed his counsel

of that
co mmunicatio n. Noth

i n g i n th e r ec ord

i n di ca tes th at a n obj ec ti on wo uld hav e be en

i gnore d by

the tri al court. Def

endan t, howev er, fai le d to obj ec t at that ti

me a nd l ater f ai l ed to r ai se t he claim in a postt rial motion. As McLaurin obse rve d, “ [f ]ai l ure to raisecl

ai m s of
err orbefo re t he tria

l court den i es the court

the oppor tunity

to correct t he error imm

edi ately and gr ant a new trial

if one i s warranted,
was t ingt ime an d ju dic ia

l res ources.” McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 488, citing Enoch , 12 2 I ll. 2 d a t 18 5- 87

. We find no jus t ific ation f or relaxi ng th e f orfe i ture rul e i n th i s ca se.

III. CONCLUSION We co nclude t hat defend ant hasf ai l ed to mee t hi

s b urden to sh ow that his fo r feit ed cla im sho uld be r ev iew ed as pla in error under either pr ong of plain-e rr or analysis. We f i nd n o bas i s to exc

use i ts f orfe i ture or t o r elax t he fo rfeit ur e r ule. Acco rd ingly, we r ever se t he judg ment of the app el

l ate court an

d af f i rm the c i rcui t court’s j udgm

en t.

Appellate court judgment revers ed; circuit court judgment affirmed.
JUSTICE BURKE, di ssen ting: De f en da n t, a hi gh sch ool student, was charged wi th crim in al sexual abuse af ter he and h

is girl fri end, a f el lo w stude

nt an d m i nor, engaged in consens ual sex. A trial comm enced on Septem

ber 29 , 2005. Th e j ury

reti red to de l i be rate at 1 :30 p.m. on Septembe

r 30. At 4:05 p. m. , t he jur y ad vise d t he co ur t it wa s u na ble to re ach a v erdi ct. The tri al cour t co nt inued t he ca se t o O ct obe r 3 . O n Oct obe r 3 , t he j ury continue d to delib erate. 1 At 10:54 a.m., the j ury adv is ed the c ourt-11- it was , in t he wo rd s o f the co ur t , “ho pe les sly deadlocked.” The trial
co ur t de cla r ed a mis t r ial. A second trial

co mmenc ed o n Ap r il

19 , 20 06 . Th

e j ur y re ti re d to de l i b erate at 2: 14 p .m. At 4 :1 7 p. m., t he j ur y re tur n ed a g ui l ty v erdi ct. In the i nte rv en i ng ti me, th e j ury sent two note s to the trial judge

. Wit hin 11⁄2 h our s of re ti ri n g to de l i b erate , the j ur

y se n t a n ote stating: “Our de si ci on [ sic ] is 11 to 1, we need adv is e/hel p [ sic ].” The trial judge responded: “Conti

nue del ib erating.” A

t 4:17 p.m., 30 to 40 mi nutes late r, acc or ding to the trial judge ’s statemen

t o n the record, t he jury returned its verdi

ct

. The re aft er , t he t rial judg e ad vised t he p arties of the j ury’ s note. At this ti me , the court al so advi sed t h e parties t her e wa s ad dit ional wr iting a t t he bo t t om o f the no te whi ch had not been there wh

en he f irst recei ved the n ot e. Thi s wri

ting stated: “W e hav e one

not gui l ty w ho wi l l not change. 11 vote gu

i l ty.” The re is a second note f

ro m the jury

in the record. T hi s note, dated A pri l 19 , 20 06 , s tates , “W

ha t are the pos si bl e s en ten ce s f or crim ia l [ sic ] se xual abu se?” T he trial judge responded to t hi s note, st at ing, “Y ou sho uld no t be co ncer ned w ith t he po ssible pu nishment
orsent ence for t he o ffense cha rg ed d ur ing you r d eliberat ions. ” T he trial judge never advi sed the parties of this note or hi s response. Relying on People

v. McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d 478 (20 09), t he
m aj or it y concludes there was no reversible erro r in thi s case eve n thoughthe trial

judg e r esp ond ed t o t he jur y’s not es w itho ut co nt act ing
orconsul ting wi th eithe rde f en da n t or his at t o rne y. I dis ag r ee wit h t his
con cl us i on and t he major ity’s r eliance o n McLaurinan d theref ore di ss en t. In McLaurin , the jury

sent f iv e note s to t he t rial judg e du ring deli berations. The f

i rs t n ote re que st ed c er t ain evidenc e. The jury sent
a sec ond note, s tating i

t was deadlocked 8-4. The trial court , after
co nsult ing

wi th b oth coun sel, i

nstructed the j ury

to co ntin

ue delib erating. The j ury then sent a thi rd note, st ating i

t was deadl ocked 7-5. Be f oreth e c our

t answ er ed

th e th i rd n ote, th e j ury

sent another
n ote agai n statin g it wasde ad lo ck ed 7- 5. T he ju ry, at t hi s tim e, also requestedto re view ce rt ain te st imony. T he t rial co ur t pr ovid ed t he j ury wi th th e te sti mony an d or dered the jury

me mb ers to keep delib erating. Shortl

y there af ter, t he j ury

re tur n ed a g ui l ty v erdi ct. Impo rtan tly, defens e co unse l was p re sent and p ar t icipat ed in t he discu ssing conc ern

i ng e ach of these notes. M cLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at-12- 483. On appea l , th e de fendant ar gue d t hat his per so nal right t o be pr es en t, under both the Illi

nois and f ederal constitutions, had been violated b ec au se h e w as ab se n t f rom t he co nver sat ions in which t he j ury notes weredis cussed. Noting the def endan t faile d to obje ct at trial
orrais e the cl ai

m i n hi s p ostt rial

motion, we f

ound the cl ai

m was rev i ew ab l e on

l y un de r th e p l ai

n- err or doctri ne . Re l y i ng on People v. Bean , 137 Ill . 2d65 (1990), we reasoned that t he def endan t’s absen ce did not ha ve an effe ct o n a ny o f his substantial righ ts and, therefore, no pla in error o ccurred. No t ab ly, t he de fen da nt in McLaurin re lied upo n People v. Childs , 159 I ll . 2d 2 17 (1994), and People v. McDonald

, 168 Ill . 2d 420 (19 95) , to su

ppor t hi s c onte nti on that he was en

titled to a new

t r ial. Howev er, we f ound b oth cas es f

actual l y di sti ngu i shab l e. A s w e expl ai ned, in McLaurin , “d efenda nt ’s co unse l was p re sent when t he courtcons i dered

the j ury ’sn ote s,” while in Childs and McDonald , “the pers on actuall

y repre sen

tin g the def endan t was a bs en t.” McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 494. In McLaurin , t he d efe nd ant ’s at t or ney was p re sent and partici pated in the d iscuss ions concerni ng each of t he jur y’s not es a nd t he tr ial cou rt ’s re spo nses. Her e, in cont ra st , ne ither defend ant no rhis atto rney was pr ese nt . N eithe r d efenda nt nor hi s atto rney was i nf ormed of t he jur y’s no t e r eg ar din g it s d ea dlo ck un t il after t he j ury h ad reached its verdict and b een

dis charged, and they

were nev erin form ed of t he second n

ot e at all . Thus, unl

ike McLaurin, neithe r d efenda nt nor hi s atto rney

wa s af f ord ed an opp ortu n i ty to take ac

tion ne ces sary to secure def

endan t’s righ ts. Because McLaurinis d ist ing uis ha ble f rom t he present case, I do not fi nd it helpful

in addressing defendant’s content ions. The Uni ted St ate Supreme Court has hel d that it is error for a t rial judge t o r esp ond t o j ury

com m un i ca ti ons wi thou t the pre senc e of ei ther the de f en da nt or his counsel

. Rogers v. United States , 422 U.S. 35, 39, 45 L . E d. 2d 1 , 6 , 9 5 S . C t . 2 091 , 2 095 (1 975 ). Or dinar ily , t he Sta te be ars t he bur den o f est ablishing whether the err or was harmless beyond a reasonabl

e doubt. See People v. Kliner , 185 Ill . 2d 81, 162 (1998 ). Ho we ve r , in t his c as e, de fen da nt faile d t o pr es er ve his c laim of err or i n h i s p osttri al moti on. A cc ordi

ngl y , i n or de r to pr ev ail, defend ant must

satisf y the pla in -error rule, wh

ic h allows a r eviewing-13- court“ to consider unpreserve d error when (1) a cle ar or ob vi ouserr or oc cur re d and t he evidenc e is so clos ely balanced t hat t he er ro r a lone threatened

to ti p the s cal esof

just ice ag ainst t he defendan t, regardless of the seri ousness of

the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that erro r is s o serious thati t affect ed t he fairne ss o f the defendant’s trial

and ch al le nged the i ntegr it y of the judicial

pro cess, regardless of the cl

oseness of

the evi dence. ” Peopl e v. Piatkow ski , 225 I ll. 2d 5 51, 565 (2 007 ). “Ess ent ially , t he fairne ss o f the trial m ust be underm

in ed.” Peo ple v. Keene , 1 69 I ll. 2d 1 , 1 7 ( 199 5) . T he defend ant bear s t he bur den o f per sua sion u nder eac h pr ong of t he doctr in e. People v. Naylor , 229 Ill . 2d 584, 593 (200 8) . I f the defend ant i s un

ab l e to estab l i sh

pl ai n error, the p ro ce du r al d efa ult
m ust b e honored. Keene , 169 Ill . 2d at 17. Defend ant argue s t hat t he t rial judg e’s a ct ions u nder mined t he fai rness of h i s tr i al un der the second p r o ng o f t he pla in- er r o rrule because he

di d n ot ha ve the oppor tun i ty to re que st a

n i ns tructi on pur suan t to People

v. Prim , 5 3 I ll. 2d 6 2 ( 197 2) . A Primi ns tructi on “info r ms t he jur y o f t he r eq uir eme n t t hat the verdict be unani mous; t ha t the jury

has a duty

to delib erate; that jurors must i mpa r t iall y consider t he ev ide nc e; an d t ha t jur o r s s ho uld n ot h es i tate to re examine t he ir views a nd cha nge t heir o pinions if t hey be lie ve t hem to be
erro neous, pr o vid ed t he ch an ge is not so lely because of t he opi ni on of f el l owj uror s or

for t he mere pur po se o f ret ur ninga verdi ct.” People v. Chapman , 194 Ill . 2d 186, 222 (2 000 ). Defend ant ar gue s t hat t he trial judge ’s di

rection to “keep de liber at ing ” fa iled t o pr o pe r ly convey t he no t io n t ha t jur o r s s ho uld no t ch an ge t he ir o pin io ns s o lely f ort he pu rp ose of re tur n i n g a v erdi ct. Ge ne r ally, trial

j udge s a

reaf f ord ed di scre ti oni

n m atters co ncer ningj ur

y man ag em en t. People v. Roberts , 214 Ill . 2d 106, 121 (2005 ). Neverthel

ess, i t go es wi thout say in g that the i nteg ri ty of a j ury verdict “must be pr ot ect ed fr om co er cion, dur ess o r inf lue nce. ” People v. Patten , 105 Ill . App. 3d 892, 894 ( 19 82 )

. T his court has
re cog n ize d th at a “verdict sh oul d e xpres s th

e d el i be rate j udg men t of t he jury. T he jur or *** has a n i ndep ende nt dut y to per for m, and he
ou ght t o be left fre e t o p ro nou nce his o wn co nvictio n. A verdict hastened by the action of the judge , however worthy the m ot iv e, ca nn ot be the resul

t o f that de liberation whi ch the law guarantees. Rem arks by a trial judge calcul ated to eff

ect the rendi

tion of a v erdict-14- withoutaffor ding the

j ury an oppor tun i ty f or ca ref ul con si de rati on are unwarranted

and o fte n l ea d to g r ea t ab us e. Whe t he rt he er r o ris harml ess or pr ejudicial de pend s up on t he fact s o f the case.” People v. Golub , 333 Il

l . 554, 56 1 (192 9). De fendan t argues t hat cou nsel ’s absen ce prevented t he defen

se f rom requestin g a Primi n str uc ti on . Acc ordi

n g to def en da n t, t he trial judge’s di re cti on to “k eep d el i berati ng” f ail ed to conv

ey to jurors t he
un an i m i ty and re ex am i n ati on com pon en ts t hat ar e a lso t he d ut ies o f a j uror. More i

m port antly, t he trial

judge ’s di

rection f ai le d to in struct j urors tha t a c ha ng e of opi ni on s hou l d n ot oc cur so lely because of t he opi ni on of f el l ow j ur orsor f

or th e m er e pur pos e of re tur n i n g a v erdi ct. No t ab ly, this cour t’s dec ision in McLaurindid no t add re ss any ar gument cons i deri

ng the absen

ce of a Primin

struction–another di sti nguishing fa

ctor in thi s cas e that the m

aj ority overlooks. Se e McLaurin , 235 Ill . 2d at 491-92. I fi nd def endan t’s contentions per sua sive and agr ee w ith t he app ellate co ur t ’s co nclusio n:

“We fi nd that Johnson h

as sustai ned hi s bur den a nd establ is hed that t he trial court’s ex parte com m un i ca ti on wi th t he jury prejudi ced hi m. John son’s ab sence a

t t hi s cri tical stage in the proceedin

gs deni ed hi m di rect knowle dge of what was
sa id and do ne in

response to t he j ury’ s question a nd depri ved him of the opp ort uni

ty to make obj ections and t ake any act ions n ec es sa

ry to s ecur e h

i s r i gh ts. The S tate

sp ecul ate s th at t he t rial co ur t wo uld have re fused a r equ est by Johns o n f ora Primi

nstruct i on b eca

use of the sh ort durati on the

j ury had delib erated before sen

din g its n ot e and b ecause the trial courtfailed t o g ive the i

ns tructi on at Jo hnso n’s first t rial. T he Sta te also p oi

n ts o ut th at Joh nson n ever asked f

or a Prim inst ruc ti onat his

fi rst t rial and, bas ed on the si

mi la riti es between t he fi rst an d s ec o ndt r ials , no pr eju dic e c o uld be sa id to have r esu lted fro m the ex par tecommuni

cat ion. The St ate ’s sp ecul ati on is unpersuasi

ve. Joh ns on wasdepri

ve d of his right to b e p re se

n t wh en th e j ur y n ote was presen

ted an d w e c an not guess wh at response he m

ay have had to it. Because the trial
c our t’s ex parte co mmunicatio n dep rived Jo hnso n of hi s constitutional

right t o be pr ese nt at all crit ical st age s o f the pr o ce ed in gs aga inst him, w e r ever se his co nvictio n and-15- reman d.” John son I I , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 203-04. The jury in defendan t’s fi rst trial deadl ocked, pr o mpt ing a mis t r ial. At de fe nd an t ’s se co nd t r ial, t he jury se nt tw o n ot es, one of wh ic h stated that the me

mb ers of the j ury were dea dlocked and one of w

hich asked wh at pu nish men t wo uld be i m pos ed on defen dant. These notes cle ar ly in dic ate that t he j ury h

ad seri ous co ncer ns abo ut t his case and
were tro ubled a bout the ramif

ications of i

ts decision. In these circumstances, t he judg e sho uld have been p ar t icular ly m indful of t he
n ee d to prote ct def

en da n t’s ri gh t to b e p re se

n t. I n my view, the adversary

process ceased

to functi on in thi s case wh en the tri al court f ail ed to i nf orm defend ant or his at t or ney of t he jury’s n otes , a n ev en t th at m ay h av e s i gn i f i ca n tl y af f ec ted th e a b i l i ty of o ne memb er o f t he jury t o ac t imp ar t iall y and on h i s or her own
acc ordt o r eac h a de cision. Giventh e i m por tan ce of th e ri gh ts in volv ed an d th e f ac ts pr ese nt ed in t his case , I believe de fendant has
me t his b urden of s howi ng th at he suf f ered p rej udice. I th eref

ore di ss en t.

JU STI CEFR

EEM A N j oi n s i n th i s d i ss en t.