issue for plain error in Illinois

2024A defendant’s argument for plain error in a reply brief “is sufficient to allow us to review the issue for plain error.” People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010).

2024The defendant “argued plain error in his reply brief, which is sufficient to allow us to review the issue for plain error.” People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010).

2025See People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178-79 (2005).

2009Defendant concedes as much, but asks us to review this issue for plain error. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615; Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186-87 .

2026“However, although defendant did not argue plain error in his opening brief, he has argued plain error in his reply brief, which is sufficient to allow us to review the issue for plain error.” Id. (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000)).

2016However, because defendant argued plain error in his reply brief, that “is sufficient to allow us to review the issue for plain error.” Id. (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000)). ¶ 12 The plain-error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception to the general rule of procedural default.

2022Accordingly, he asks us to review the issue for plain error. ¶ 22 Under the plain-error doctrine, this court may consider a forfeited claim when “(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.” People v. Piatkowski, 2

2017Plain-Error Doctrine ¶ 57 When a defendant has failed to preserve an error for review, we may still review the issue for plain error. *417 Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 48, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; Piatkowski , 225 Ill. 2d at 564 , 312 Ill.Dec. 338 , 870 N.E.2d 403 ; Ill.

2026“However, although defendant did not argue plain error in his opening brief, he has argued plain error in his reply brief, which is sufficient to allow us to review the issue for plain error.” Id. (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000)).

2014The State argues that this distinct issue should not be reviewed for plain error because respondent fails to recognize his forfeiture under these circumstances, nor has he offered any argument under either prong of the plain error doctrine. ¶ 66 Although respondent's arguments for plain error review in his reply brief are sufficient to allow this court to review the issue for plain error (People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010)), the first step is to determine whether the State is correct that respondent has forfeited the issue (People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 549 (2010)) because tha

2021Id. ¶ 45 In his reply brief, defendant argues that we should review this issue for plain error.

2019See id. ¶ 26 However, defendant contends that we may review the issue for plain error.

2023See In re Z.J., 2020 IL App (2d) 190824, ¶¶ 50-51 (explaining the application of forfeiture and the plain error exception); In re L.B., 2015 IL App (3d) 150023, ¶ 11 (stating “[h]owever, since termination of parental rights affects a fundamental liberty interest, we will consider the issue for plain error”).

2021“However, since termination of parental rights affects a fundamental liberty interest, we will consider the issue for plain error.” Id. (quoting In re L.B., 2015 IL App (3d) 150023, ¶ 11 ). “[A] reviewing court should not easily declare forfeiture of an argument directed at a decision to terminate [parental] rights.” In re Br.

2018People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 48, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; People v. Belknap , 2014 IL 117094 , ¶ 66, 387 Ill.Dec. 633 , 23 N.E.3d 325 (in order to preserve a purported error for consideration by a reviewing court, a defendant must object to the error at trial and raise the error in a posttrial motion). ¶ 44 However, even when a defendant has failed to preserve an alleged error for our review, we may still review the issue for plain error.

2018People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 48, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; People v. Belknap , 2014 IL 117094 , ¶ 66, 387 Ill.Dec. 633 , 23 N.E.3d 325 (in order to preserve a purported error for consideration by a reviewing court, a defendant must object to the error at trial and raise the error in a posttrial motion). ¶ 44 However, even when a defendant has failed to preserve an alleged error for our review, we may still review the issue for plain error.

2014The State argues that this distinct issue should not be reviewed for plain error because respondent fails to recognize his forfeiture under these circumstances, nor has he offered any argument under either prong of the plain error doctrine. ¶ 66 Although respondent’s arguments for plain error review in his reply brief are sufficient to allow this court to review the issue for plain error (People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010)), the first step is to determine whether the State is correct that respondent has forfeited the issue (People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 549 (2010)) because tha

2014The State argues that this distinct issue should not be reviewed for plain error because respondent fails to recognize his forfeiture under these circumstances, nor has he offered any argument under either prong of the plain error doctrine. ¶ 66 Although respondent's arguments for plain error review in his reply brief are sufficient to allow this court to review the issue for plain error (People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010)), the first step is to determine whether the State is correct that respondent has forfeited the issue (People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 549 (2010)) because tha

2022Alternatively, defendant requests that we review the issue for plain error. ¶ 14 The Sprinkle doctrine allows a reviewing court to relax forfeiture rules where counsel has been effectively prevented from objecting because it “ ‘would have fallen on deaf ears.’ ” People 5 v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 488 (2009) (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.

2020We disagree, and for reasons stated below, we decline to review this issue for plain error. ¶ 24 Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved and otherwise forfeited error “(1) where the evidence in the case is so closely balanced that the jury’s guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the evidence[ ] or (2) where the error is so serious that the defendant was denied a substantial right[ ] and thus a fair trial.” People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 489 (2009).

2018See Arient v. Shaik , 2015 IL App (1st) 133969 , ¶ 37, 393 Ill.Dec. 725 , 35 N.E.3d 117 .

2018See Arient v. Shaik , 2015 IL App (1st) 133969 , ¶ 37, 393 Ill.Dec. 725 , 35 N.E.3d 117 .

2012See People v. Chapman, 194 Ill.2d 186, 225 , 252 Ill.Dec. 474 , 743 N.E.2d 48 (2000) (failure to properly preserve an alleged error by both an objection at trial and a written posttrial motion constitutes a procedural default of that error on review).

2012See People v. Chapman, 194 Ill.2d 186, 225 , 252 Ill.Dec. 474 , 743 N.E.2d 48 (2000) (failure to properly preserve an alleged error by both an objection at trial and a written posttrial motion constitutes a procedural default of that error on review).

2007Plain error review is limited to two circumstances: "(1) where the evidence is closely balanced, so as to preclude argument that an innocent person was wrongfully convicted; or (2) where the alleged error is so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process." People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 (2000).

2007Plain error review is limited to two circumstances: “(1) where the evidence is closely balanced, so as to preclude argument that an innocent person was wrongfully convicted; or (2) where the alleged error is so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 (2000).

2018People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 48, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; People v. Belknap , 2014 IL 117094 , ¶ 66, 387 Ill.Dec. 633 , 23 N.E.3d 325 (in order to preserve a purported error for consideration by a reviewing court, a defendant must object to the error at trial and raise the error in a posttrial motion). ¶ 44 However, even when a defendant has failed to preserve an alleged error for our review, we may still review the issue for plain error.

2018People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 48, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; People v. Belknap , 2014 IL 117094 , ¶ 66, 387 Ill.Dec. 633 , 23 N.E.3d 325 (in order to preserve a purported error for consideration by a reviewing court, a defendant must object to the error at trial and raise the error in a posttrial motion). ¶ 44 However, even when a defendant has failed to preserve an alleged error for our review, we may still review the issue for plain error.

2024Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 . ¶ 50 In this case, the State laid its foundation for the firearm by establishing a chain of custody from the time it was seized.

2016Specifically, he argues the State erred when it "emphasized that [defendant] would not have run from the police or resisted them based solely on this possession of cannabis, which 'doesn't get me arrested.' " Defendant concedes the alleged error was not preserved for appeal (see People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 , 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 (1988) (to preserve an error for appellate review, a defendant must raise the issue at trial and in a posttrial motion)); however, he contends this court may review the issue for plain error. ¶ 69 "The plain-error doctrine permits a reviewing court to by-pas

2026See In re Commitment of Tenorio, 2020 IL App (1st) 182608, ¶ 50 (applying criminal plain error to a civil commitment case). ¶ 48 The criminal plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an unpreserved claim where a clear and obvious error occurred and (1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.

2026See People v. Nieves, 192 Ill. 2d 487, 503 (2000) (finding the defendant waived reliance on plain error review where he “neither argue[d] that the evidence was closely balanced nor explain[ed] why the error [was] so severe that it must be remedied to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”); see also People v. De la Hera, 2011 IL App (3d) 100301, ¶ 8 (“In this case, because the defendant failed to file a posttrial motion raising his argument and because he does not request this court to review the issue for plain error, he has forfeited the argument on appeal.”). ¶ 56 C.

2026As a general matter, “[a] trial judge may question witnesses to elicit truth, clarify ambiguities in the witnesses’ testimony, or shed light on material issues.” Tamesha T., 2014 IL App (1st) 132986, ¶ 26 (citing Obernauf v. Haberstich, 145 Ill.

2026See People v. Nieves, 192 Ill. 2d 487, 503 (2000) (finding the defendant waived reliance on plain error review where he “neither argue[d] that the evidence was closely balanced nor explain[ed] why the error [was] so severe that it must be remedied to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”); see also People v. De la Hera, 2011 IL App (3d) 100301, ¶ 8 (“In this case, because the defendant failed to file a posttrial motion raising his argument and because he does not request this court to review the issue for plain error, he has forfeited the argument on appeal.”). ¶ 56 C.

2026As a general matter, “[a] trial judge may question witnesses to elicit truth, clarify ambiguities in the witnesses’ testimony, or shed light on material issues.” Tamesha T., 2014 IL App (1st) 132986, ¶ 26 (citing Obernauf v. Haberstich, 145 Ill.