clear or obvious error in Illinois

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).

2026People v. Hudson, 228 Ill. 2d 181, 190 (2008). “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved 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

2026Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider unpreserved error when “(1) a clear or obvious 18 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); People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2

2026The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to reach errors that affect a defendant’s substantial rights in only two circumstances: (1) where a clear or obvious error occurred that was “prejudicial,” meaning the evidence is so closely balanced that the guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the evidence; or (2) where a clear or obvious error occurred that “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. Bush, 2023 IL 128747, ¶ 71 ; People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 16

2026See People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). ¶ 65 The plain-error doctrine applies when “a clear or obvious error has 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 defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)).

2026See People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). ¶ 65 The plain-error doctrine applies when “a clear or obvious error has 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 defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)).

2026In the sentencing context, this court may disregard a defendant’s -4- forfeiture under the plain-error doctrine when a clear or obvious error occurred 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.” Id. at 545 .

2026However, he contends the error may be reviewed under the plain-error doctrine because a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence at his resentencing was closely balanced. ¶ 39 Generally, a defendant forfeits a claim of sentencing error by failing to preserve the error through “both a contemporaneous objection and a written postsentencing motion raising the issue.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010).

2026The State contends the court did not err. ¶ 41 The plain-error doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error under the following two scenarios: “(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.” Peopl

2025It permits a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error under the following two scenarios: -5- “(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). ¶ 22 The first step in

2025However, the supreme court has stated: “The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default [citation] and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: ‘(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 int

2021Without addressing defendant’s alleged forfeiture of the issue or mentioning plain-error review, the State argues that the trial court did not actually raise or find a bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness but merely granted defendant’s motion for a fitness examination. ¶ 64 First, the plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: “ ‘(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

2024The plain-error rule is applied in instances of 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 24 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). ¶ 64 We begin our analysis of this issue with the well-

2022Accordingly, to establish plain error, a defendant must first show that a clear or obvious error occurred (id.), 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 (People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008)) or that the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived defendant of a fair trial (People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 (2005)). ¶ 72 In determining if the evidence was close, a reviewing court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and conduct a qualitative, comm

2026It applies only where (1) the evidence is “so closely balanced that the jury’s guilty verdict may have resulted from a clear or obvious error and not the evidence, or (2) when a clear or obvious error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. ¶ 81 The first step in the analysis requires this court to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.

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

2026“The initial analytical step under either prong of the plain[-]error doctrine is determining whether there was a clear or obvious error at trial.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 49 .

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.

2022People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988); see also People v. Wood, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 470 (2005) (A “defendant must both specifically object at trial and raise the specific issue again in a posttrial motion to preserve an alleged error for review.”) He nonetheless asks this court to review his argument under the first prong of the plain error doctrine. ¶ 52 The plain error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception to the general rule of forfeiture, which “allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced

2021Accordingly, we begin by considering whether a plain error—that is, a clear or obvious error— was committed. -3- ¶ 19 Where the State has charged a defendant with a controlled substance offense, “[i]t is axiomatic that the State must prove that the material recovered from the defendant and which forms the basis of the charge is, in fact, a controlled substance.” People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 466 (2005).

2026See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (stating that to preserve an issue for review, a party must raise the issue at trial and in a written posttrial motion). ¶ 48 The first step of plain error review is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.

2024See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (to preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must object to it at trial and raise it in a posttrial motion); Wiatr, 119 Ill. App. 3d at 473 (defendant 10 forfeited the argument that the Village lacked written permission from the state’s attorney giving the Village the authority to prosecute him by failing to raise the issue with the circuit court); Jennings, 343 Ill. App. 3d at 727 (defendant forfeited his claim on appeal to the appointment of a special prosecutor by failing to object at the circuit court). ¶ 24 Nonetheless, defendant

2026People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2009). ¶ 60 When addressing a claim of plain error and an alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellate courts first consider whether the defendant has established a clear or obvious error. “ ‘Absent a clear or obvious error ***, neither the doctrine of plain error nor a theory of ineffective assistance affords any relief from the forfeiture.’ ” Gilker, 2023 IL App (4th) 220914 , ¶ 78.

2026This doctrine, rooted in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(a), allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved claims of error when “(1) a clear or obvious error occurs 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 occurs 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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peopl

2026“An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. *** Accordingly, any deficiencies in counsel’s performance must be prejudicial to the defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance under the Constitution.” Id. at 691-92 . ¶ 96 “When addressing a claim of plain error and an alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellate courts first consider whether the defendant has established a clear or obvious error. ‘Absent a clear or obvious error ***, neith

2026Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . - 13 - ¶ 46 As stated, defendant failed to show that a clear or obvious error occurred in the trial court’s sentencing.

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).

2026To obtain relief under the doctrine, “a defendant must first show that a clear or obvious error occurred.” Id.; see People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21 (“When a defendant invokes the plain error rule, the first step in the analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.”).

2026The plain error rule allows for review when one of two prongs are met: “(1) where the evidence in a case is so closely balanced that the jury’s guilty verdict may have resulted from a clear or obvious error and not the evidence or (2) when a clear or obvious error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 19 .

2021As the first step in the analysis, we must determine “whether there was a clear or obvious error at trial.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 49 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; see also People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 , 984 N.E.2d 475 .

2021As the first step in the analysis, we must determine “whether there was a clear or obvious error at trial.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 49 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; see also People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 , 984 N.E.2d 475 .

2026“The first step in the plain error analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.” People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 44 . ¶ 110 Under the Illinois Constitution, all penalties must be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.

2026This court may review unpreserved sentencing issues for plain error where a clear or obvious error occurred and “(i) the evidence at sentencing was closely balanced or (ii) the error was so egregious that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 43 . -9- ¶ 35 Defendant bears the burden of persuading this court to excuse his forfeiture.

2026“An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. *** Accordingly, any deficiencies in counsel’s performance must be prejudicial to the defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance under the Constitution.” Id. at 691-92 . ¶ 96 “When addressing a claim of plain error and an alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellate courts first consider whether the defendant has established a clear or obvious error. ‘Absent a clear or obvious error ***, neith

2026People v. Jones, 2020 IL App (4th) 190909 , ¶ 179 (“Absent a clear or obvious error ***, neither the doctrine of plain error nor a theory of ineffective assistance affords any relief from the forfeiture.”).

2021See People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 485 , 939 N.E.2d 475, 480 (2010) (addressing plain error); People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 15 , 996 N.E.2d 607 (addressing ineffective assistance). ¶ 27 The plain-error doctrine allows reviewing courts to excuse a forfeited claim when, in relevant part, “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. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 , 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007).

2021See People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 485 , 939 N.E.2d 475, 480 (2010) (addressing plain error); People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 15 , 996 N.E.2d 607 (addressing ineffective assistance). ¶ 27 The plain-error doctrine allows reviewing courts to excuse a forfeited claim when, in relevant part, “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. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 , 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007).

2026However, defendant also argues plain error applies. ¶ 90 The plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider a forfeited error affecting substantial rights in two circumstances. “(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 th

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

2026An unpreserved error may be considered on appeal under the plain-error doctrine if (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.” Birge, 2021 IL 125644, ¶ 24 .

2026Nevertheless, he argues this court should consider it under the plain-error doctrine, as the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced. ¶ 70 An unpreserved error may be considered on appeal under the plain-error doctrine if (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

2026People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 43 . ¶ 33 Our first step under the plain-error doctrine is to determine whether there has been a clear or obvious error.

2025People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 43 . ¶ 22 Our first step under the plain-error doctrine is to determine whether there has been a clear or obvious error.

2024This court may review unpreserved issues under the plain-error doctrine, which we have explained as follows: “The plain-error doctrine allows a court to disregard a defendant’s forfeiture and consider unpreserved error in two instances: ‘(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 -8- it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged

2024This court may review unpreserved issues under the plain error doctrine, which we have explained as follows: “The plain-error doctrine allows a court to disregard a defendant’s forfeiture and consider unpreserved error in two instances: ‘(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