forfeited error in Illinois

2026He asks us to review this -8- issue under the plain-error rule, which allows us to review a forfeited claim when either “(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, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007

2026As the Illinois Supreme Court explained in People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178-79 (2005): “The plain-error doctrine *** allows a reviewing court to reach a forfeited error affecting substantial rights in two circumstances.

2026We agree. ¶ 56 Plain-error review allows this court to consider a forfeited error 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, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007).

2026Plain error review allows this court to consider a forfeited error 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 44 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, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007).

2024See People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 485 (2010) (“The ultimate question of whether a forfeited claim is reviewable as plain error is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.”). ¶ 17 Regardless of whether the trial court should have required the State to present testimony substantiating the charges (compare People v. Bey, 51 Ill. 2d 262, 267 (1972), with People v. LaPointe, 88 Ill. 2d 482, 498 (1981); People v. Minter, 2015 IL App (1st) 120958, ¶ 148 ), we determine that no clear error arose because the trial court placed minimal weight on the pending charges. ¶ 18 In deciding whether sig

2022“The ultimate question of whether a forfeited claim is reviewable as plain error is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 485 , 939 N.E.2d 475, 480 (2010). ¶ 52 Section 5-8-4 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) provides for mandatory consecutive sentencing when, in relevant part, “[o]ne of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted was first degree murder or a Class X or Class 1 felony and the defendant inflicted severe bodily injury.” (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(d)(1) (West 2018).

2024Id. ¶ 63 The Crespo court then wrote as follows: “In Cotton, the [United States Supreme] Court noted that ‘ “before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) ‘error’, (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” [Citation.] “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” ’ [Citation.] The Court held that ‘even assuming respondents’ substantial rights we

2011In Herron, 215 Ill.2d at 181-83 , 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 , our supreme court also considered its holding in Thurow and its holding in People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335 , 273 Ill.Dec. 241 , 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001), which reviewed whether an extended-term sentence based on a judge's finding that the crime was "brutal and *754 heinous" violated the holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), under a plain-error analysis: "[In Crespo , ] [w]e then returned to [ United States v. ] Cotton, [ 535 U.S. 625 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002)

2011In Herron, 215 Ill.2d at 181-83 , 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 , our supreme court also considered its holding in Thurow and its holding in People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335 , 273 Ill.Dec. 241 , 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001), which reviewed whether an extended-term sentence based on a judge's finding that the crime was "brutal and *754 heinous" violated the holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), under a plain-error analysis: "[In Crespo , ] [w]e then returned to [ United States v. ] Cotton, [ 535 U.S. 625 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002)

2011In Herron, 215 Ill.2d at 181-83 , 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 , our supreme court also considered its holding in Thurow and its holding in People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335 , 273 Ill.Dec. 241 , 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001), which reviewed whether an extended-term sentence based on a judge's finding that the crime was "brutal and *754 heinous" violated the holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), under a plain-error analysis: "[In Crespo , ] [w]e then returned to [ United States v. ] Cotton, [ 535 U.S. 625 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002)

2026However, under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may address a forfeited claim of sentencing error when a “clear or obvious error” occurred and “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced [(first-prong plain error)], or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing [(second-prong plain error)].” Id. at 545 .

2026However, under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may address a forfeited claim of sentencing error when a “clear or obvious error” occurred and “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced [(first-prong plain error)], or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing [(second-prong plain error)].” Id. at 545 .

2025See People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 485 (2009) (“to preserve a claim of error for review, counsel must object to the error at trial and raise the error in a motion for a new trial before the trial court” (emphasis added)). ¶ 80 Mr. Aldridge asks that we review this issue under the plain-error doctrine, which allows us to review a forfeited claim where a clear or 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, regardless of the seriousness of the error” or (2) “the error is so serious th

2021“The ultimate question of whether a forfeited claim is reviewable as plain error is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” Id. (citing People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 485 (2009)). ¶ 27 The plain error doctrine is applicable when a clear or 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 (first-prong plain error) or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process (second-prong plain error).

2012A reviewing court can consider a forfeited error where: “(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. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010).

2012A reviewing court can consider a forfeited error where: “(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. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010).

2024There, ‘[i]t is the defendant rather than the [State] who bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice.’ [Citation.] ‘In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfeited error unless the defendant shows that the error was prejudicial.’ [Citation.]” People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352, 363 (2003).

2012People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43 , 912 N.E.2d 1220, 1227 (2009). “ ‘In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfeited error unless the defendant shows that the error was prejudicial.’ ” People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352, 363 , 786 N.E.2d 1019, 1025 (2003) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)).

2017See Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 607 . ¶ 59 The State nonetheless contends defendant cannot establish plain error with respect to this forfeited error because the record betrays no prejudice.

2016Id. at 613 , 939 N.E.2d at 413 . ¶ 59 The plain-error doctrine permits a reviewing court to reach a forfeited error affecting substantial rights in the following two circumstances: “(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 th

2008Defendant, however, asks this court to consider this issue pursuant to the plain-error rule. "`"[B]efore an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) `error,' (2) that is `plain,' and (3) that `affect[s] substantial rights.'" [Citation.] "If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."'" People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335, 348 , 273 Ill.Dec. 241 , 788 N.E.2d 1117, 1124 (2001), quot

2008Defendant, however, asks this court to consider this issue pursuant to the plain-error rule. "`"[B]efore an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) `error,' (2) that is `plain,' and (3) that `affect[s] substantial rights.'" [Citation.] "If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."'" People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335, 348 , 273 Ill.Dec. 241 , 788 N.E.2d 1117, 1124 (2001), quot

2011Plain error applies to a forfeited error under two circumstances: "`(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 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d at 413 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 2

2011Plain error applies to a forfeited error under two circumstances: "`(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 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d at 413 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 2

2025The plain error rule is not a “general savings clause” (People v. Precup, 73 Ill. 2d 7, 16 (1978)), but instead it provides “a narrow exception to forfeiture principles designed to protect the defendant’s rights and the reputation of the judicial process.” Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 21 . ¶ 31 Under the plain error rule, the reviewing court may review a forfeited error under the following circumstances: “(1) when 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

2024See Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 185 ; see also People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 16-17 (1995); Precup, 73 Ill. 2d at 17 (“Before plain error can be considered as a means of circumventing the general waiver rule, it must be plainly apparent from the record that an error affecting substantial rights was committed.”).

2024We note that an alleged forfeited error, such as in this case, may qualify for review under the plain-error rule because forfeiture “ ‘is the failure to make the timely assertion of the right,’ ” as opposed to waiver, which is the “ ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427 , 444 n.2 (2005) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993)).

2022People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 19-20 (2007) (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 218-19 (2006)); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (“In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfeited error unless the defendant shows that the error was prejudicial.”).

2024People v. Thomas, 178 Ill. 2d 215, 251 (1997).

2023People v. Thomas, 178 Ill. 2d 215, 251 (1997).

2023Defendant acknowledges that he forfeited this issue (see People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)), but argues that it is reviewable under the closely balanced prong of the plain error doctrine. ¶ 15 The plain error doctrine allows a forfeited error to be reviewed when “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.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 , ¶ 48.

2022He acknowledges that he failed to preserve this issue (see People v. Enoch, 7 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)) but argues that it amounts to reversible plain error because the evidence is closely balanced. ¶ 24 The plain error doctrine allows a forfeited error to be reviewed when “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.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 .

2006The doctrine, adopted formally as Supreme Court Rule 615, serves as a “ ‘narrow and limited exception to the general *** rule [of procedural default].’ ” People v. Szabo, 113 Ill. 2d 83, 94 (1986), quoting People v. Pastorino, 91 Ill. 2d 178, 188 (1982).

2006The doctrine, adopted formally as Supreme Court Rule 615, serves as a “ ‘narrow and limited exception to the general *** rule [of procedural default].’ ” People v. Szabo, 113 Ill. 2d 83, 94 (1986), quoting People v. Pastorino, 91 Ill. 2d 178, 188 (1982).

2026Our supreme court has noted two instances when it is appropriate to review a forfeited error: “(1) when ‘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) when ‘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.’ ” Id.

2025Id. ¶ 110 A reviewing court may consider a forfeited error under the plain-error doctrine when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence was 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 the error was 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.

2024He requests that we review the claim under plain error. ¶ 51 “Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may address a forfeited claim in two circumstances: ‘(1) where 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 and (2) where 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 evi

2023Jan. 1, 1967), the plain error doctrine permits a reviewing court to address a forfeited claim where a “clear or obvious error occurred” and either (1) “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) the “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18 .

2024See Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 185 ; see also People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 16-17 (1995); Precup, 73 Ill. 2d at 17 (“Before plain error can be considered as a means of circumventing the general waiver rule, it must be plainly apparent from the record that an error affecting substantial rights was committed.”).

2020His assertion that he was walking to meet his girlfriend meant that he had gone a half-mile out of his way to “pass through” the UIC campus. ¶ 26 The second prong involves establishing an error “so serious that the defendant was denied a substantial right, and thus a fair trial, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited error in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 179 (2005) (citing People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1 (1995)).

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.

2018People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 348-49 (2000).

2026Jan. 1, 1967). ¶ 24 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider a forfeited error affecting substantial rights in two circumstances: -8- “(1) when a clear and 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) when a clear or obvious error occurred and the 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.” Peo

2026Jan. 1, 1967). ¶ 39 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider a forfeited error affecting substantial rights in two circumstances: “(1) when 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) when a clear or obvious error occurred and the 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

2025Jan. 1, 1967) and -4- states that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.” A forfeited claim will constitute plain error in two circumstances: “(1) where 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 and (2) where a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged

2025Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may address a forfeited claim in two circumstances: “(1) where 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 and (2) where 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. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 .

2022Id. ¶ 131. ¶ 128 In rejecting the defendant’s claim, the supreme court noted the similarity between the court’s review of a forfeited claim under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of the plain-error doctrine and review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the prejudice prong: “Plain error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant, in either case, must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone

2021People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 . 13 ¶ 52 Because we have already determined that the evidence is not closely balanced (supra ¶ 48), even if the State’s closing argument comments constitute prosecutorial misconduct, this forfeited error is not reversible because defendant cannot show the prejudice needed for reversal under either a closely balanced plain error analysis or an ineffective assistance of counsel analysis. ¶ 53 III.

2026Id.

2025The plain-error rule allows courts to review a forfeited error if the error falls under one of two alternative prongs: “ ‘(1) when 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) when a clear or obvious error occurred and the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of - 19 - No. 1-23-1931 the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Johns