constitutional issue exception in Illinois

2026The court therefore relied on People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600 , which held that the constitutional-issue exception applies when a defendant’s motion to suppress asserts a violation of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to reach the defendant’s contention on appeal rather than requiring him to raise it in postconviction proceeding.

2021In Enoch, the supreme court held that appellate review of issues not raised in a posttrial motion is limited to plain error, sufficiency of the evidence, and “constitutional issues which have properly been raised at trial and which can be raised later in a post-conviction hearing petition.” Id.; see People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶¶ 17-20 (holding that constitutional issue exception recognized in Enoch, a capital case, applies equally to noncapital cases). ¶ 83 The constitutional issue exception does not apply.

2024Schoonover, 2021 IL 124832, ¶ 23 ; Radford, 2020 IL 123975, ¶ 22 ; see Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d at 190-91 (distinguishing between the constitutional-issue exception and plain error).

2023We find no compelling reason, under Sprinkle, to relax the forfeiture rule here. ¶ 20 Defendant next argues, citing Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d at 190 , that because the issue raised is a constitutional one, we should grant review under the constitutional issue exception.

2020People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 138 (2000) (citing U.S. Const., amend.

2019People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 138 (2000) (citing U.S. Const., amend.

2023However, the exception only covers “ ‘constitutional issues that were properly raised at trial’ [citation], and where defendant’s only omission was ‘merely *** fail[ing] to raise it in a posttrial motion.’ ” -7- Nos. 1-22-1560 & 1-22-1561 (cons.) (Emphasis in original.) People v. Burnett, 2015 IL App (1st) 133610, ¶ 79 (quoting People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶¶ 16-18 ).

2021See People v. Burnett, 2015 IL App (1st) 133610, ¶¶ 72, 76-79 (where the defendant objected to a statement at trial on ground that it did not fit any hearsay exceptions, the constitutional-issue exception did not apply to his claim on appeal that, by admitting the statement into evidence, his sixth amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him was violated). ¶ 81 Defendant next argues that, if we find the challenges to Jessica’s testimony forfeited, we should review his claims under the plain-error doctrine.

2019Defendant counters, arguing that he was not required to make an offer of proof (People v. Lynch, 104 Ill. 2d 194, 202 (1984) (formal offer of proof not necessary if question shows the purpose and materiality of the evidence, is in a proper form, and clearly admits of a favorable answer)), but argues, in the alternative, that he can establish plain error and requests that we review his arguments under that doctrine. ¶ 52 Defendant’s argument does not fall under the constitutional-issue exception because he did not properly raise a constitutional issue in the trial court.

2019Defendant counters, arguing that he was not required to make an offer of proof (People v. Lynch, 104 Ill. 2d 194, 202 (1984) (formal offer of proof not necessary if question shows the purpose and materiality of the evidence, is in a proper form, and clearly admits of a favorable answer)) but argues, in the alternative, that he can establish plain error and requests that we review his arguments under that doctrine. ¶ 52 Defendant’s argument does not fall under the constitutional-issue exception because he did not properly raise a constitutional issue in the trial court.

2025See Cregan, 2014 IL 113600 , ¶ 20. ¶ 64 “A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005).

2025See Cregan, 2014 IL 113600 , ¶ 20. ¶ 64 “A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005).

2017See id. ¶¶ 72, 76-79 (where the defendant objected to a statement at trial on the grounds that the statement did not fit various statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule, the constitutional issue exception did not apply to the defendant’s claim on appeal that by admitting the statement into evidence, his sixth amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him was violated). ¶ 52 We next address defendant’s request for plain error review. “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the eviden

2017See id. ¶¶ 72, 76-79 (where the defendant objected to a statement at trial on the grounds that the statement did not fit various statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule, the constitutional issue exception did not apply to the defendant’s claim on appeal that by admitting the statement into evidence, his sixth amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him was violated). ¶ 52 We next address defendant’s request for plain error review. “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the eviden

2017See Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 2013 IL 110505, ¶ 26 (forfeiture applies when an issue is not raised in a timely manner). ¶ 58 C.

2017See Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 2013 IL 110505, ¶ 26 (forfeiture applies when an issue is not raised in a timely manner). ¶ 58 C.

2014People v. Bridgewater, 235 Ill. 2d 85, 92 (2009).

2014People v. Bridgewater, 235 Ill. 2d 85, 92 (2009).

2024“In reviewing a circuit court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence, we employ a two-part standard of review.” People v. Rice, 2019 IL App (3d) 170134, ¶ 16 (citing People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2006)).

2024“In reviewing a circuit court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence, we employ a two-part standard of review.” People v. Rice, 2019 IL App (3d) 170134, ¶ 16 (citing People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2006)).

2022He argues that this court should still consider this issue because it falls under the constitutional issue exception to the forfeiture rule. ¶ 99 While defendant’s argument could be construed as a claim that his due process right to a fair trial was violated and that the constitutional issue exception to forfeiture should apply, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated, “Generally, a defendant forfeits review of any putative jury instruction error if the defendant does not object to the instruction or offer an alternative instruction at trial and does not raise the instruction issue in a posttria

2022He argues that this court should still consider this issue because it falls under the constitutional issue exception to the forfeiture rule. ¶ 99 While defendant’s argument could be construed as a claim that his due process right to a fair trial was violated and that the constitutional issue exception to forfeiture should apply, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated, “Generally, a defendant forfeits review of any putative jury instruction error if the defendant does not object to the instruction or offer an alternative instruction at trial and does not raise the instruction issue in a posttria

2019IV; see also Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213 (1960) (observing the fourth amendment applies to state officials through the fourteenth amendment).

1998See also People v. Schrems, 224 Ill.