Court Opinion

ID: 9859902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:57:01.86127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:44.033731
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the defendants’ convictions. I write separately, however, because I believe that the majority’s reading of the holding in People v. Santiago, 108 Ill. App. 3d 787, 806 (1982), is too expansive when it infers from Santiago that the court’s knowledge of the numerical division of the jury combined with the Prim instruction, standing alone, could never constitute harmless error. Here, as in Santiago, where the issue is reviewed under the plain error doctrine, the question that must be answered is whether the defendant has proven prejudice. Whether prejudice has been proven depends upon the surrounding circumstances and particular facts of each case. Santiago, 108 Ill. App. 3d at 806. It would be possible, therefore, for a situation to arise where the court’s knowledge of the numerical division of the jury, combined with the Prim instruction, would constitute reversible error under a plain error analysis. If the defendant could show from the record that he was prejudiced in such a situation, even without any other actions or statements by the trial court, I believe plain error would be shown, and the defendant would be entitled to a new trial. I agree that the defendants in this matter have failed to show any prejudice from the trial court’s actions, and I therefore concur with the decision to affirm the trial court.