seriousness 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

2026First-prong plain-error review is appropriate 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.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007) (citing People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005)).

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

2026Id. (forfeiture may be excused 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).

2026People v. Reese, 2017 IL 120011, ¶ 72 . - 10 - Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may disregard a defendant’s forfeiture and consider an unpreserved claim 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 closenes

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

2025Mr. Armstrong’s response is that we may consider the issue as first-prong plain error because the “evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against [him], regardless of the seriousness of the error.” People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124 (2009).

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

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,

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

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-

2024Next, he must show that 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)). ¶ 22 In determining if the evidence was close, a reviewing court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and conduct a qualitative, commonsense assessment of the evidence within the context of the case.

2022Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve this issue, but he argues it is a reversible plain error. ¶ 40 “The plain-error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). “[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

2021Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider unpreserved errors when a clear and obvious error has occurred (People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010)), and either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence (People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005)).

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.

2025Jan.1, 1967) (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.”); People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308, 322-23 (2002); see also In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 430 (2009) (holding forfeiture principles that apply in criminal proceedings apply in proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act). -9- ¶ 21 The plain error doctrine allows review of a forfeited error in two instances: “(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 justi

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

2012The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a “defendant must both specifically object at trial and raise the specific issue again in a posttrial motion to preserve any alleged error for review.” People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 470 (2005); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564 (2007). ¶ 109 Nevertheless, defendant urges us to review his claim under plain error. “[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 again

2025See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). ¶ 21 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise forfeited error when “(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People 12 v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564 (2007).

2025People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). “[T]he plain- error doctrine bypasses normal forfeiture principles and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005).

2021In the first instance, the defendant must prove ‘prejudicial error.’ That is, the defendant must show both that there was plain error and that the evidence was so closely balanced that the error alone severely threatened to tip the - 17 - scales of justice against him [or her]. *** In the second instance, the defendant must prove there was plain error and that the error was so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. [People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 17 (1995).] Prejudice to the defendant is presumed because of the impo

2016In Keene, the court applied this disjunctive approach to an unpreserved prior consistent statements issue, concluding both that the argument did not implicate a substantial right and the evidence was not "closely balanced." Keene, 169 Ill. 2d at 18-19 . ¶ 33 The closely balanced prong has developed since Keene to allow a reviewing court to consider unpreserved errors when "the evidence is so closely balanced ***, regardless of the seriousness of the error." People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 .

2021“Under the first prong [of plain error analysis], the defendant must show that 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.’ ” People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 486 (2010) (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)).

2020See People v. Johnson, 238 Ill.2d 478, 484 (2010). - 14 - However, under Illinois's plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim 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.’ ” Id.

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

2026See id.

2026See People v. Davis, 145 Ill. 2d 240, 251 (1991) (failure to raise an issue on appeal does not preclude the court’s consideration of it under the plain error doctrine). ¶ 54 Forfeited errors may also be reviewed under the plain error doctrine, which “ ‘allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 203 (2009).

2025That doctrine “‘allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’” People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 203 (2009) (quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005)).

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

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

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

2024The plain-error doctrine permits review to consider error that has been forfeited where “the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error,” or “the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168, ¶ 21 .

2021However, she requests that we nonetheless review the claim under the plain error doctrine. ¶ 27 “The plain-error doctrine permits a court of review to consider error that has been forfeited when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168, ¶ 21 , 962 N.E.2d 410 .

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.

2025R.C., 195 Ill. 2d at 305 . ¶ 27 In criminal cases, forfeited claims may be reviewed under the plain-error doctrine “where a clear and 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 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.

2018People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189-90 (2010). ¶ 38 “Plain-error review is appropriate under either of 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 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.’ ” Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶

2017People v. Sargent , 239 Ill. 2d 166 , 189-90, 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010). ¶ 38 "Plain-error review is appropriate under either of 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 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

2019Pursuant to 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. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 18 (quotin

2019Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may 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 . - 10 - 1-16-1104 ¶ 24 The sixth amen