seriousness error in Illinois

2026Defendant only argues that the first prong of the plain error analysis applies, i.e., “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. Bever, 2019 IL App (3d) 170681, ¶ 38 (citing 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

2026Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve this error in the court below, but he asks that we review this issue under the first prong of the plain error doctrine. 22 No. 1-24-0103 ¶ 65 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to bypass normal forfeiture principles and consider an otherwise unpreserved error affecting substantial rights 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, 187 (2005); see also Ill.

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)).

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

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

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).

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

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, -5- No. 1-23-2414B 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)). ¶ 16 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.

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-

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

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)).

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

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).

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).

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 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 importance

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 - 2020 IL App (2d) 190127-U 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 closene

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 .

2023The defendant carries the burden of persuasion under either prong of the plain error doctrine. - 15 - People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2009).

2021The court recently reaffirmed, in the context of a different second-prong error, that “ ‘an error may involve a[n] *** unimportant matter, but still affect the 15 integrity of the judicial process and the fairness of the proceeding.’ ” People v. Birge, 2021 IL 125644, ¶ 53 (quoting People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 48 (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)).

2020We agree with defendant. ¶ 14 “The 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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 203 (2009) quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005).

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.

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 .

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

2023Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may disregard a defendant’s forfeiture and consider an unpreserved claim of 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 the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (I

2023Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may disregard a defendant’s forfeiture and consider an unpreserved claim of 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 the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (I

2025People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882, ¶ 45 . ¶ 29 Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an 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.

2021“The plain error doctrine permits 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 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. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882, ¶ 48 .

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

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