matter of plain error in Illinois

2004Defendant acknowledges that he has waived the issue by failing to preserve his objection in a motion for a new trial ( People v. Enoch , 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)), but asks that this court review the issue as a matter of plain error.

2004Defendant acknowledges that he has waived the issue by failing to preserve his objection in a motion for a new trial (People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)), but asks that this court review the issue as a matter of plain error.

2012Defendant asks this court to review the issues as a matter of plain error. ¶ 32 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

2012Defendant asks this court to review the issues as a matter of plain error. ¶ 32 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

2026People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 81 ; see People v. Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶¶ 49-50 (stating unpreserved jury instruction errors may be reviewed as a matter of plain error).

2025People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 81 ; see People v. Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶¶ 49-50 (stating unpreserved jury instruction errors may be reviewed as a matter of plain error).

2025People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2005); Ill.

2024People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2005); Ill.

2025People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010).

2024See People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1187 (2010) (“It is well settled that, to preserve a claim of sentencing error, both a contemporaneous objection and a written postsentencing motion raising the issue are required.”).

2021In his brief, however, defendant argues the issue should be addressed as a matter of plain error. -8- ¶ 21 “[S]entencing errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewable as plain error if (1) the evidence was closely balanced or (2) the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Ahlers, 402 Ill.

2020In his brief, however, defendant argues the issue should be addressed as a matter of plain error. ¶ 28 “[S]entencing errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewable as plain error if (1) the evidence was closely balanced or (2) the error was sufficiently grave that it deprived the defendant of a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Ahlers, 402 Ill.

2021See Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 46 (finding error where the court asked potential jurors if they “had any disagreement or quarrel with” the four principles, but not whether they understood them). ¶ 97 Having made no objection to the admonitions in the trial court, however, Mr. Young may raise the issue on appeal only as a matter of plain error.

2018Defendant, however, asks this court to review the issue as a matter of plain error. ¶ 16 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 integrity of the judi

2021See People v. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶ 65 (because the incident between the officer and the defendant was a consensual encounter, there was no need to address the defendant’s remaining argument that the incident constituted an improper Terry stop).

2017Almond, 2015 IL 113817, ¶¶ 54-55 ; Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶¶ 18-23 .

2022App. 3d 1023, 1027 (1993) (holding that although neither party had raised the issue of Rule 651(c) compliance, the court could consider the issue as a matter of plain error because compliance with Rule 651(c) is necessary for proper review of the proceedings). ¶8 The Act allows a person convicted of a crime to “assert that their convictions were the result of a substantial denial of their rights under the United States Constitution or the Illinois Constitution or both.” People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 379 (1998).

2021Cain, 869 N.W.2d at 831 ; see also Ex parte Benford, 935 So. 2d 421, 429 (Ala. 2006) (when venire given voir dire oath but jurors not given trial oath, oath was defective rather than nonexistent and forfeiture applied). ¶ 44 We may consider a forfeited claim as a matter of plain error: a clear and obvious error that either (1) occurred when the evidence was so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to change the result or (2) was so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.

2021Mr. Sterling did not brief this issue as a matter of plain error, but rather as a sufficiency issue, so we must first consider whether we may reverse on this basis. ¶ 36 “Illinois law is well settled that other than for assessing subject matter jurisdiction, ‘a reviewing court should not normally search the record for unargued and unbriefed reasons to reverse a trial court judgment.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 323 (2010).

2020See People v. McGee, 398 Ill.

2017See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148-49 (holding that structural errors include denial of self-representation); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613-14 (equating second-prong plain error with - 12 - structural error).

2017See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148-49 (holding that structural errors include denial of self-representation); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613-14 (equating second-prong plain error with - 12 - structural error).

1998People v. Thornton, 286 Ill.App.3d 624, 632 , 222 Ill.Dec. 60 , 676 N.E.2d 1024 (1997) (the restitution award was vacated); see also People v. Rayburn, 258 Ill.App.3d 331, 335 , 196 Ill.Dec. 598 , 630 N.E.2d 533 (1994) ("[r]eviewing courts have considered questions regarding restitution orders as a matter of plain error").

1998People v. Thornton, 286 Ill.App.3d 624, 632 , 222 Ill.Dec. 60 , 676 N.E.2d 1024 (1997) (the restitution award was vacated); see also People v. Rayburn, 258 Ill.App.3d 331, 335 , 196 Ill.Dec. 598 , 630 N.E.2d 533 (1994) ("[r]eviewing courts have considered questions regarding restitution orders as a matter of plain error").