right to present defense in Illinois

2015See People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 90 (2001) (analyzing defendant's right to present a defense claim under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine due to the importance of the right involved); see also People v. Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564, 576 (1977) (holding that "an accused has 'the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies' " (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 (1967)).

2015See People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 90 (2001) (analyzing defendant's right to present a defense claim under the second prong of the plain error doctrine due to the importance of the right involved)); See also People v. Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564, 576 (1977) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 (1967)) (holding that "an accused has the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of events as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies")).

2020Although a defendant has the right to present a defense (People v. Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564 (1977)), a circuit court may prevent a defendant from introducing irrelevant or unreliable evidence.

2020Although a defendant has the right to present a defense (People v. Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564 (1977)), a circuit court may prevent a defendant from introducing 12 1-17-0250 irrelevant or unreliable evidence.

2021People v. Hayes, 353 Ill.

2020People v. Hayes, 353 Ill.

2025Id. at 57 (citing Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987)). ¶ 110 Similarly, under the Illinois Constitution, a defendant has a constitutional right to be present only when his or her absence would result in the denial of a substantial right in the proceeding, such as “the right to confront witnesses, the right to present a defense, and the right to an impartial jury.” Bean, 137 Ill. 2d at 81 .

2025Id. at 57 (citing Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987)). ¶ 110 Similarly, under the Illinois Constitution, a defendant has a constitutional right to be present only when his or her absence would result in the denial of a substantial right in the proceeding, such as “the right to confront witnesses, the right to present a defense, and the right to an impartial jury.” Bean, 137 Ill. 2d at 81 .

2015See People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 90 (2001) (analyzing defendant's right to present a defense claim under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine due to the importance of the right involved); see also People v. Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564, 576 (1977) (holding that "an accused has 'the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies' " (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 (1967)).

2015See People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 90 (2001) (analyzing defendant's right to present a defense claim under the second prong of the plain error doctrine due to the importance of the right involved)); See also People v. Manion, 67 Ill. 2d 564, 576 (1977) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 (1967)) (holding that "an accused has the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of events as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies")).

2007"While a defendant has the right to present a defense, a trial court has broad discretion in ruling on evidence sought to be excluded as irrelevant." People v. Bohn, 362 Ill.

2007“While a defendant has the right to present a defense, a trial court has broad discretion in ruling on evidence sought to be excluded as irrelevant.” People v. Bohn, 362 Ill.

2022However, “the right to present a defense does not include the right to introduce irrelevant evidence.” In re Detention of Melcher, 2013 IL App (1st) 123085, ¶ 44 (citing People v. Lowitzki, 285 Ill.App.3d 770, 779 (1st Dist. 1996). ¶ 71 While respondent contends that Dr. Schaab’s testimony would have been significant to show that the State’s expert witness had no basis of opinion to explain what had changed since 2000 to conclude that he was a sexually violent person, that was not an issue at respondent’s trial.

2014While there is no question that respondent has a right under the Act to present and cross-examine witnesses at his jury trial (725 ILCS 207/25(c)(3) (West 2012)), the right to present a defense does not include the right to introduce irrelevant evidence (People v. Lowitzki, 285 Ill.

2021A defendant’s right to be present, however, is not considered to be a substantial constitutional right; rather, it is a “ ‘lesser right’ that is intended to secure the substantial rights of a defendant, such as the right to confront witnesses, the right to present a defense, or the right to an impartial jury.” People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 487 (2010).

2021A defendant’s right to be present, however, is not considered to be a substantial constitutional right; rather, it is a “ ‘lesser right’ that is intended to secure the substantial rights of a defendant, such as the right to confront witnesses, the right to present a defense, or the right to an impartial jury.” People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 487 (2010).

2018People v. Martin, 2011 IL 109102, ¶ 20 , 955 N.E.2d 1058 ; see also People v. Way, 2017 IL 120023, ¶ 18 (“[W]here the ruling on a motion in limine is based on an interpretation of law, *** review proceeds de novo.”).

2017People v. Martin , 2011 IL 109102 , ¶ 20, 353 Ill.Dec. 247 , 955 N.E.2d 1058 ; see also People v. Way , 2017 IL 120023 , ¶ 18, 417 Ill.Dec. 707 , 89 N.E.3d 355 ("[W]here the ruling on a motion in limine is based on an interpretation of law, * * * review proceeds de novo .").

2017People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988).

2017People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988).

2016See People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 181-82 (2005) (harmless- error analysis and plain-error analysis are essentially the same; however, once error is found, a plain-error analysis places the burden on defendant to prove that the error was prejudicial). ¶ 57 In determining whether an evidentiary error occurred, we observe that "[a] defendant has the right to present a defense, present witnesses to establish a defense and to present his version of the facts to the trier of facts." People v. Wright, 218 Ill.

2016Nonetheless, because of the adoption of Rule 405(a), we will review whether the exclusion of Dr. Frumkin’s testimony, if error, amounted to plain error. ¶ 31 “A defendant has the right to present a defense, present witnesses to establish a defense and to present his version of the facts to the trier of facts.” People v. Wright, 218 Ill.

2024People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 485 (2009). ¶ 144 The right to confront witnesses and the right to present a defense are substantial rights, and the denial of a substantial right is plain error.

2020McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d at 490-91 . ¶ 79 For example, a defendant’s exclusion from a discussion of jury notes does not violate his constitutional right to be present if “the jury notes were all either straightforward requests 19 No. 1-17-1923 for portions of testimony or notes claiming that the jury was ‘deadlocked.’ ” McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d at 491 .

2022However, “the right to present a defense does not include the right to introduce irrelevant evidence.” In re Detention of Melcher, 2013 IL App (1st) 123085, ¶ 44 (citing People v. Lowitzki, 285 Ill.App.3d 770, 779 (1st Dist. 1996). ¶ 71 While respondent contends that Dr. Schaab’s testimony would have been significant to show that the State’s expert witness had no basis of opinion to explain what had changed since 2000 to conclude that he was a sexually violent person, that was not an issue at respondent’s trial.

2020However, “the right to present a defense does not include the right to introduce irrelevant evidence.” In re Detention of Melcher, 2013 IL App (1st) 123085, ¶ 44 .

2025Id. at 57 (citing Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987)). ¶ 110 Similarly, under the Illinois Constitution, a defendant has a constitutional right to be present only when his or her absence would result in the denial of a substantial right in the proceeding, such as “the right to confront witnesses, the right to present a defense, and the right to an impartial jury.” Bean, 137 Ill. 2d at 81 .

2023Id. (citing People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65, 84 (1990)).

2022See Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 184 (strict compliance with the certified mailing requirement of section 115-4.1 of the Code cannot be harmless error). ¶ 23 Because our decision on the first issue is dispositive, it is not necessary to address the defendant’s other arguments on appeal. ¶ 24 CONCLUSION ¶ 25 The judgment of the circuit court of Mercer County is reversed and remanded. ¶ 26 Reversed and remanded. 10

2021Therefore, Tomasino argues, Wiley’s testimony may have affected the verdict and he was prejudiced by the court’s denial. -7- No. 1-19-2582 ¶ 26 “ ‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense,’ ” and is “ ‘a fundamental element of due process of law.’ ” People v. McClain, 343 Ill.

2021App. 3d 1122, 1130 (2003) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967)); see also People v. Lott, 66 Ill. 2d 290, 297 (1977) (“Speedy administration of justice is desirable, but the desire for speed must not be allowed to impinge upon the constitutional requirement of a fair opportunity to defend.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2020See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . ¶ 19 Moreover, the jury’s finding that the murder was exceptionally brutal or heinous did not affect defendant’s sentence for murder.