Court Opinion

ID: 9782737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:09:39.039948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:09.423054
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment of the court. I write separately to clarify the proper analysis we must employ to reach our judgment. In People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010), our supreme court established the framework for analyzing violations of Supreme Court Rule 431(b). Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) (eff. May 1, 2007). The rule mandates a specific question and response process. “The trial court must ask each potential juror whether he or she understands and accepts each of the principles in the rule.” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 607. Regarding the proper methodology for compliance with the rule, “[t]he questioning may be performed either individually or in a group, but the rule requires an opportunity for a response from each prospective juror on his or her understanding and acceptance of those principles.” Id. The responsibility for compliance with Rule 431(b) rests with the trial court alone and strict compliance with the rule is required. Id. However, our supreme court also clearly held that a violation of Rule 431(b) does not fall within the very limited category of “structural errors” which require automatic or “per se” reversal of a defendant’s conviction. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 611. Rather, a violation of Rule 431(b) rises to the level of reversible error only if: (1) the defendant has preserved the error for review, in which case the conviction will be reversed unless the State establishes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 611 (citing People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 495 (2009))); or (2) the defendant has failed to preserve the error for review, but has established that the “plain-error” doctrine applies (Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613). Plain error will permit a court to review an otherwise forfeited allegation of error only if: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)). Given this framework, the analysis in the instant matter is quite simple. The trial court did not strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 431(b), which is a clear and obvious error. Because the defendant failed to raise a timely objection to this error, he has forfeited the issue upon appeal. We will only address his forfeited allegation of error if he establishes either that the evidence against him was so closely balanced as to tip the scales of justice against him, or that the error was so serious that it affected the fairness of his trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. Here, the defendant has failed to establish that the evidence against him was closely balanced. Three different witnesses placed the defendant at the scene shortly before the victim’s body was discovered with several deep lacerations to the neck, and at least one witness testified to observing the defendant attack the victim shortly before the body was discovered. Another witness observed the defendant disposing of a knife-like object. Likewise, the defendant has failed to establish that the error was so serious that it affected the fairness of his trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. Although an impartial jury is fundamental to a fair trial, strict compliance with Rule 431(b) is not indispensable to the selection of an impartial jury. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 614. Where, as here, no evidence is presented to show that the jury was biased, the second prong of the plain error doctrine will not revive a forfeited claim since we cannot presume that a jury is biased simply because the trial court erred in conducting the Rule 431(b) questioning. Id. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.