first step in plain error in Illinois

2026Id. ¶ 22 Rule 431(b) requires the circuit court to ask whether prospective jurors understand and accept four essential principles of criminal law derived from People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477 (1984); Ill.

2020The first step in plain error review is to determine whether error occurred (People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)), because absent reversible error there can be no plain error (People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 349 (2000)). ¶ 20 Defendant first contends that he was “essentially” denied his right to make a closing argument when the court interrupted trial counsel, “interject[ed] its own theories,” and mocked trial counsel’s argument.

2021See People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 , 939 N.E.2d 403, 413 (2010) (showing - 12 - the first step in plain-error analysis is the determination of whether clear or obvious error occurred).

2021See People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 , 939 N.E.2d 403, 413 (2010) (showing - 12 - the first step in plain-error analysis is the determination of whether clear or obvious error occurred).

2024People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124-25 (2009); People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 444 (2005).

2021See Walker, 232 Ill. 2d at 124-25 .

2024See People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581 , ¶ 18.

2022As discussed, the first step in plain error review is to determine whether an error occurred (Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18 ), and a defendant has the burden to establish plain error (Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613). ¶ 59 When determining a sentence, “the trial court has broad discretionary powers.” People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203, 209 (2000).

2019Id. ¶ 11 “It is a basic principle of our justice system that jury deliberations shall remain private and secret.” People v. Johnson, 2015 IL App (3d) 130610 , ¶ 17.

2016People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 , 43 (2009). ¶6 Defendant was convicted of UUW by a felon under section 24-1.1(a) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2012)).

2021Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d at 189 . ¶ 27 “The purpose of jury instructions is to provide the jury with the correct legal principles applicable to the evidence, so that the jury may reach a correct conclusion according to the law and the evidence.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008).

2017People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010).

2020The first step in plain error review is to determine whether error occurred (People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)), because absent reversible error there can be no plain error (People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 349 (2000)). ¶ 20 Defendant first contends that he was “essentially” denied his right to make a closing argument when the court interrupted trial counsel, “interject[ed] its own theories,” and mocked trial counsel’s argument.

2010People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000). -52- The first step in plain-error analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.

2015People v. McNeal, 405 Ill.

2014People v. McNeal, 405 Ill.

2023People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 51 . ¶ 104 The first step in plain-error analysis under either prong is to determine whether an error occurred at all.

2021See People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 . ¶ 51 Typically, the first step in plain-error analysis is determining whether there was a clear or obvious error.

2023The State responds that the first step in plain-error analysis is “to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred” (People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21 (2022)), and that defendant cannot do so.

2023The State responds that defendant cannot satisfy the first step in plain-error analysis, which is to establish that “a clear or obvious error occurred” (People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21 ).

2022People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 , 187 -16- 1-20-0274 (2005).

2019People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 187, 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005).

2022See People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 (noting the first step in plain-error analysis is to determine whether error occurred). ¶ 84 1.

2015Id. ¶ 46 The right to the effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed under both the federal and state constitutions.

2026People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551, 564-65 (2007); Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 88 (“Without reversible error, there can be no plain error.”). ¶ 64 The parties dispute the standard of review for the underlying error.

2021Id.

2022Under the doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error if that error is “clear or obvious” and “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1187 (2010). ¶ 33 The first step in plain-error analysis is deciding whether clear or obvious error occurred.

2022Under the doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error if that error is “clear or obvious” and “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1187 (2010). ¶ 33 The first step in plain-error analysis is deciding whether clear or obvious error occurred.

2018The first step in plain-error analysis "is to determine whether the claim presented on review actually amounts to a 'clear or obvious error.' " People v. Staake , 2017 IL 121755 , ¶ 33, 421 Ill.Dec. 936 , 102 N.E.3d 217 (quoting People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 49, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ). ¶ 23 "It is well established that the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused in a criminal proceeding both the right to the assistance of counsel and the correlative right to proceed without counsel." People v. Haynes , 174 Ill. 2d 204 , 235, 220 Ill.Dec. 406 ,

2018The first step in plain-error analysis "is to determine whether the claim presented on review actually amounts to a 'clear or obvious error.' " People v. Staake , 2017 IL 121755 , ¶ 33, 421 Ill.Dec. 936 , 102 N.E.3d 217 (quoting People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 49, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ). ¶ 23 "It is well established that the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused in a criminal proceeding both the right to the assistance of counsel and the correlative right to proceed without counsel." People v. Haynes , 174 Ill. 2d 204 , 235, 220 Ill.Dec. 406 ,

2018The first step in plain-error analysis "is to determine whether the claim presented on review actually amounts to a 'clear or obvious error.' " People v. Staake , 2017 IL 121755 , ¶ 33, 421 Ill.Dec. 936 , 102 N.E.3d 217 (quoting People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 49, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ). ¶ 23 "It is well established that the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused in a criminal proceeding both the right to the assistance of counsel and the correlative right to proceed without counsel." People v. Haynes , 174 Ill. 2d 204 , 235, 220 Ill.Dec. 406 ,

2018The first step in plain-error analysis "is to determine whether the claim presented on review actually amounts to a 'clear or obvious error.' " People v. Staake , 2017 IL 121755 , ¶ 33, 421 Ill.Dec. 936 , 102 N.E.3d 217 (quoting People v. Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 49, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ). ¶ 23 "It is well established that the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused in a criminal proceeding both the right to the assistance of counsel and the correlative right to proceed without counsel." People v. Haynes , 174 Ill. 2d 204 , 235, 220 Ill.Dec. 406 ,

2026Id. ¶ 22 Rule 431(b) requires the circuit court to ask whether prospective jurors understand and accept four essential principles of criminal law derived from People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477 (1984); Ill.

2026People v. Wilson, 2022 IL App (5th) 190377, ¶ 41 . ¶ 44 “The erroneous admission of evidence of other crimes carries a high risk of prejudice and ordinarily calls for reversal.” People v. Lindgren, 79 Ill. 2d 129, 140 (1980).