Court Opinion

ID: 9779619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:26:19.675678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:36.822356
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring: I agree with the majority’s analysis on all issues except the issue related to the electronic monitoring device. I agree with the majority that this defendant has forfeited the electronic monitoring device issue and also failed to meet her burden of proof as to plain error. Here, the presence of the electronic monitoring device was brought to the court’s attention after the close of the evidence and defendant requested a curative instruction for the jury. After receiving the curative instruction, the defense did not raise the issue in a posttrial motion. Consequently, we can only review this claim of error if defendant can establish plain error. Since the evidence was not closely balanced and defendant received a curative instruction to insure the fairness of the proceedings, I join the majority’s conclusion that plain error does not exist. Once the majority determined that no error occurred, I respectfully suggest that any discussion of whether an electronic monitoring device “may be similar to shackles” is unnecessary. Consequently, I agree with the State that this is a “faux shackling issue.” Therefore, I do not adopt the views of the majority on this issue beyond the conclusion that the electronic monitor issue has been forfeited by the defense. For this reason, I specially concur.