clear or obvious error in Illinois

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

2026Defendant acknowledges that the doctrine of judicial estoppel “was not explicitly invoked by name” in the trial court, but he maintains that he sufficiently raised the doctrine when defense counsel “point[ed] out the State’s inconsistent representations and the procedural unfairness of those representations.” Defendant recognizes, however, that the “issue was not preserved” because his posttrial motion “addressed the State’s custody argument rather than the underlying issue of prosecutorial inconsistency.” Accordingly, defendant asks this court to review the issue under plain error “to address

2026Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186-87 . ¶ 62 The initial analytical step under either prong of the plain error doctrine is determining whether there was a clear or obvious error before the trial court.

2026We can review 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 - 11 - No. 1-24-0825 closeness of the evidence.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007) (citing People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005)).

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)).

2026Id. ¶ 64 The first step in the plain error analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.

2026“If the defendant fails to meet his burden, the procedural default will be honored.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). ¶ 70 Because if there is no error, there can be no plain error, the first step in any plain error analysis is to determine whether there was a clear or obvious error.

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

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.

2026Specifically, the defendant contends that the evidence at trial was closely balanced, as noted by his sufficiency argument, and that “[i]f the evidence was insufficient” then “of course the evidence was at a minimum closely balanced.” Thus, the defendant contends that regardless of whether we consider the claim under plain error instead of harmless error, we must find that reversible error occurred. ¶ 69 The Illinois Supreme Court has identified two instances when it is appropriate to excuse a defendant’s forfeiture of a claim of error and conduct a plain-error review: (1) when “a clear or obv

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.

2025Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.” The plain error rule “allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved 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,

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).

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.

2023See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (finding that to preserve an issue for review, a party must raise the issue at trial and in a written posttrial motion). ¶ 47 The first step in plain error review is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.

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 - No. 1-24-0185 ¶ 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).

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.

2023Relevant here, one exception allows this court to consider unpreserved errors when “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.” Id., at 42-43 (quoting, People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551, 565 (2007)) (internal citation omitted).

2026People 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 .

2021Compare People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 (indicating that to obtain relief under the second prong of the plain error doctrine, a defendant must show not only that a clear or obvious error occurred, but that the error was a structural error), with People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 46 (indicating, although somewhat implicitly, that review under the second prong of the plain error doctrine is not restricted solely to the six types of structural error that have been recognized by the United States Supreme Court).

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- No. 1-24-0185 ¶ 35 Defendant bears the burden of persuading this court to excuse his 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).

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

2026See People v. Jones, 2020 IL App (4th) 190909, ¶ 179 (“Absent a clear or obvious error ***, neither the doctrine of - 11 - plain error nor a theory of ineffective assistance affords any relief from the forfeiture.”). ¶ 31 B.

2026The plain-error doctrine applies when a clear or obvious error has occurred, and either: (1) “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) the “error [was] so serious that it affected the fairness of the - 15 - No. 1-24-0533 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.

2026However, the plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved claims of 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. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 ; see Ill.

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

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

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 .

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.

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

2022Under this doctrine, we may address a forfeited claim if 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 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.’ ” People v. Harvey, 2018 IL 122325, ¶ 15 (quoting People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18 ).

2024The 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 or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Jones, 2016 IL 119391, ¶ 10 .

2024The 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 or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Jones, 2016 IL 119391, ¶10 .