2026 IL App (4th) 251140-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under NO. 4-25-1140 July 8, 2026 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
DOUGLAS MICHAEL BOOLMAN, ) Appeal from the Petitioner-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County CHRISTINE A. POHL, ) No. 25OP2260 Respondent-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Donald P. Shriver, ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lannerd and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court concluded that respondent (1) forfeited appellate review of her claim that petitioner failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a cell phone recording and (2) failed to establish that her due process rights were violated because she could not see the recording during the hearing on petitioner’s petition for a no contact order.
¶2 Petitioner, Douglas Michael Boolman, filed a verified petition for a no contact
order against respondent, Christine A. Pohl. During a hearing on the petition, petitioner played a
video recording from a cell phone. Respondent did not object, and the trial court considered the
recording. The court granted the petition, and respondent filed a posttrial motion, arguing the no
contact order should be vacated because (1) no foundation was laid for the recording before it
was played and (2) she could not see the recording during the hearing. The court denied the
motion, and respondent appealed. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Petitioner lived with Janet Rodriguez in a home next door to respondent’s house.
While they were neighbors, the parties had many disagreements about the property line between
their homes, such as whether respondent could keep her garbage cans on the property line and
whether petitioner could move the garbage cans to mow the area.
¶5 In the verified petition, which named petitioner and Rodriguez as protected
parties, petitioner alleged respondent (1) set off car alarms and beat on her trash cans early in the
morning to disturb and harass him and Rodriguez, (2) pushed a trash can against him and his
mower while he was mowing the grass at the property line, (3) yelled violent and degrading
things at him while he mowed his lawn, (4) threw rocks at his back and debris in front of the
mower while he mowed the grass, and (5) refused to keep her garbage cans solely on her
property. Petitioner asserted he had pictures and video recordings supporting his allegations.
¶6 At the hearing on the petition, respondent appeared via Zoom, and petitioner and
Rodriguez appeared in the trial court. During the hearing, the following exchange occurred:
“[PETITIONER]: I, I have these numbered, but—there is—there’s a
bunch of videos on there; pictures of the trash can and dates and, and all of them
show [respondent] accosting me.
(Whereupon a video was played in open court.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I, I had to hang up to call the police at that point and I
couldn’t tape any further.
[PETITIONER]: There’s, there’s a bunch of different videos. I, I had
numbered one through six.
THE COURT: I saw [respondent] pick up something in the video and
throw it at [petitioner].
-2- MS. RODRIGUEZ: You can hear the rock hit [petitioner’s] back.
THE COURT: All right. [Respondent], I’m going to show you this, as best
I can.
[RESPONDENT]: Okay. I think I probably know what it is but it was
[petitioner] putting a stick or throwing a stick my way and I threw one that
direction; I did not throw it at him. I can’t see it.
THE COURT: I can see it; you threw it at [petitioner].
[RESPONDENT]: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: I—your—
[RESPONDENT]: There’s no way I threw it at [petitioner].
THE COURT: —I’m done. I saw it.
[RESPONDENT]: Okay.” (Emphasis added.)
The video was not made part of the record on appeal.
¶7 The trial court granted petitioner’s petition, ordering respondent to stay 25 feet
away from petitioner and Rodriguez except under certain circumstances irrelevant to this appeal.
¶8 Within 30 days, respondent filed a posttrial motion, arguing, among other things,
the no contact order should be vacated because the recording was not authenticated and she
could not see the recording during the hearing. The trial court denied respondent’s motion.
¶9 This appeal followed.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 On appeal, respondent, who proceeds pro se, argues the recording should not have
been admitted because (1) a proper foundation for its admission was not laid and (2) she could
not see the recording at the hearing. Putting aside the various problems with respondent’s brief,
-3- such as the fact that her argument contains no citations to the record and she fails to cite any
authority that would aid this court in deciding this appeal (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1,
2020)), respondent’s arguments fail.
¶ 12 A. The Absence of an Appellee’s Brief
¶ 13 In resolving this appeal, we observe petitioner, the appellee, did not file a brief.
The supreme court has set forth three distinct discretionary options a reviewing court may
exercise in the absence of an appellee’s brief. See Thomas v. Koe, 395 Ill. App. 3d 570, 577
(2009). We may (1) serve as an advocate for the appellee and decide the case if we determine
justice so requires; (2) decide the merits of the case when the record is simple and the issues can
be easily decided without the aid of the appellee’s brief; or (3) reverse the trial court when the
appellant’s brief—namely, in the present case, respondent—demonstrates prima facie reversible
error that the record supports. Id. We will reverse the trial court only if respondent’s brief
establishes prima facie reversible error. “ ‘Prima facie’ means, ‘[a]t first sight; on first
appearance but subject to further evidence or information’ and ‘[s]ufficient to establish a fact or
raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.’ ” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1228
(8th ed. 2004)). With this in mind, we now turn to the merits.
¶ 14 B. Respondent Forfeited Her Foundation Objection to Petitioner’s Recording
¶ 15 Concerning respondent’s lack of foundation argument, we note the forfeiture rule
applies in cases involving the admission of a video recording. People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455,
470 (2005). Under the forfeiture rule, “both a trial objection and a written post-trial motion
raising the issue are necessary to preserve an issue for review.” People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176,
186 (1988). Failure to do either results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal. Id. We review de novo
whether an issue is forfeited. People v. Gutierrez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230260, ¶ 34.
-4- ¶ 16 Here, respondent never objected to the admission of the recording when it was
played at the hearing. The requirement of a timely objection at the hearing was particularly
necessary because the “lack of a timely and specific objection deprive[d] the [petitioner] of the
opportunity to correct any deficiency in the foundational proof at the trial level.” Woods, 214 Ill.
2d at 470. Respondent simply cannot sit idly by and stand mute when the recording is offered at
the hearing and then object to its admission after the fact. See id. Accordingly, because
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2026 IL App (4th) 251140-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under NO. 4-25-1140 July 8, 2026 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
DOUGLAS MICHAEL BOOLMAN, ) Appeal from the Petitioner-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County CHRISTINE A. POHL, ) No. 25OP2260 Respondent-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Donald P. Shriver, ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lannerd and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court concluded that respondent (1) forfeited appellate review of her claim that petitioner failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a cell phone recording and (2) failed to establish that her due process rights were violated because she could not see the recording during the hearing on petitioner’s petition for a no contact order.
¶2 Petitioner, Douglas Michael Boolman, filed a verified petition for a no contact
order against respondent, Christine A. Pohl. During a hearing on the petition, petitioner played a
video recording from a cell phone. Respondent did not object, and the trial court considered the
recording. The court granted the petition, and respondent filed a posttrial motion, arguing the no
contact order should be vacated because (1) no foundation was laid for the recording before it
was played and (2) she could not see the recording during the hearing. The court denied the
motion, and respondent appealed. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Petitioner lived with Janet Rodriguez in a home next door to respondent’s house.
While they were neighbors, the parties had many disagreements about the property line between
their homes, such as whether respondent could keep her garbage cans on the property line and
whether petitioner could move the garbage cans to mow the area.
¶5 In the verified petition, which named petitioner and Rodriguez as protected
parties, petitioner alleged respondent (1) set off car alarms and beat on her trash cans early in the
morning to disturb and harass him and Rodriguez, (2) pushed a trash can against him and his
mower while he was mowing the grass at the property line, (3) yelled violent and degrading
things at him while he mowed his lawn, (4) threw rocks at his back and debris in front of the
mower while he mowed the grass, and (5) refused to keep her garbage cans solely on her
property. Petitioner asserted he had pictures and video recordings supporting his allegations.
¶6 At the hearing on the petition, respondent appeared via Zoom, and petitioner and
Rodriguez appeared in the trial court. During the hearing, the following exchange occurred:
“[PETITIONER]: I, I have these numbered, but—there is—there’s a
bunch of videos on there; pictures of the trash can and dates and, and all of them
show [respondent] accosting me.
(Whereupon a video was played in open court.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I, I had to hang up to call the police at that point and I
couldn’t tape any further.
[PETITIONER]: There’s, there’s a bunch of different videos. I, I had
numbered one through six.
THE COURT: I saw [respondent] pick up something in the video and
throw it at [petitioner].
-2- MS. RODRIGUEZ: You can hear the rock hit [petitioner’s] back.
THE COURT: All right. [Respondent], I’m going to show you this, as best
I can.
[RESPONDENT]: Okay. I think I probably know what it is but it was
[petitioner] putting a stick or throwing a stick my way and I threw one that
direction; I did not throw it at him. I can’t see it.
THE COURT: I can see it; you threw it at [petitioner].
[RESPONDENT]: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: I—your—
[RESPONDENT]: There’s no way I threw it at [petitioner].
THE COURT: —I’m done. I saw it.
[RESPONDENT]: Okay.” (Emphasis added.)
The video was not made part of the record on appeal.
¶7 The trial court granted petitioner’s petition, ordering respondent to stay 25 feet
away from petitioner and Rodriguez except under certain circumstances irrelevant to this appeal.
¶8 Within 30 days, respondent filed a posttrial motion, arguing, among other things,
the no contact order should be vacated because the recording was not authenticated and she
could not see the recording during the hearing. The trial court denied respondent’s motion.
¶9 This appeal followed.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 On appeal, respondent, who proceeds pro se, argues the recording should not have
been admitted because (1) a proper foundation for its admission was not laid and (2) she could
not see the recording at the hearing. Putting aside the various problems with respondent’s brief,
-3- such as the fact that her argument contains no citations to the record and she fails to cite any
authority that would aid this court in deciding this appeal (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1,
2020)), respondent’s arguments fail.
¶ 12 A. The Absence of an Appellee’s Brief
¶ 13 In resolving this appeal, we observe petitioner, the appellee, did not file a brief.
The supreme court has set forth three distinct discretionary options a reviewing court may
exercise in the absence of an appellee’s brief. See Thomas v. Koe, 395 Ill. App. 3d 570, 577
(2009). We may (1) serve as an advocate for the appellee and decide the case if we determine
justice so requires; (2) decide the merits of the case when the record is simple and the issues can
be easily decided without the aid of the appellee’s brief; or (3) reverse the trial court when the
appellant’s brief—namely, in the present case, respondent—demonstrates prima facie reversible
error that the record supports. Id. We will reverse the trial court only if respondent’s brief
establishes prima facie reversible error. “ ‘Prima facie’ means, ‘[a]t first sight; on first
appearance but subject to further evidence or information’ and ‘[s]ufficient to establish a fact or
raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.’ ” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1228
(8th ed. 2004)). With this in mind, we now turn to the merits.
¶ 14 B. Respondent Forfeited Her Foundation Objection to Petitioner’s Recording
¶ 15 Concerning respondent’s lack of foundation argument, we note the forfeiture rule
applies in cases involving the admission of a video recording. People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455,
470 (2005). Under the forfeiture rule, “both a trial objection and a written post-trial motion
raising the issue are necessary to preserve an issue for review.” People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176,
186 (1988). Failure to do either results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal. Id. We review de novo
whether an issue is forfeited. People v. Gutierrez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230260, ¶ 34.
-4- ¶ 16 Here, respondent never objected to the admission of the recording when it was
played at the hearing. The requirement of a timely objection at the hearing was particularly
necessary because the “lack of a timely and specific objection deprive[d] the [petitioner] of the
opportunity to correct any deficiency in the foundational proof at the trial level.” Woods, 214 Ill.
2d at 470. Respondent simply cannot sit idly by and stand mute when the recording is offered at
the hearing and then object to its admission after the fact. See id. Accordingly, because
respondent failed to make a timely objection at the hearing and does not raise an exception to
forfeiture, such as the plain-error rule, we conclude she has forfeited appellate review of the
issue of whether a proper foundation was laid for petitioner’s video recording.
¶ 17 We reach this conclusion even though, technically, petitioner forfeited a forfeiture
argument by failing to file a brief asserting it. However, it is well-settled that forfeiture is a
limitation on the parties, not this court. In re Amanda H., 2017 IL App (3d) 150164, ¶ 33. We
choose to overlook the fact petitioner himself never raised forfeiture.
¶ 18 C. Respondent Was Not Denied Due Process
¶ 19 Respondent’s claim she could not see the recording in the trial court does not fare
any better. In her brief, respondent argues she was denied due process because she could not see
the recording at the hearing. To the extent the issue respondent raises is a due process claim, we
review the issue de novo. See Carroll v. Department of Employment Security, 389 Ill. App. 3d
404, 410 (2009).
¶ 20 Putting aside whether respondent’s argument can be construed as a procedural or
substantive due process claim, we conclude that the record rebuts any contention she could not
see the recording. See People v. Phyfiher, 361 Ill. App. 3d 881, 885 (2005) (concluding the
record rebutted the defendant’s due process claim). Reading the record as a whole, it is clear to
-5- us that respondent’s statement, “I can’t see it,” which was immediately preceded by her
assertion, “I did not throw it at him,” means not that the recording itself was unseen but that she
did not see in the recording where she threw anything at petitioner. In other words, respondent
took issue with the substance of the recording, not the visibility of it.
¶ 21 As noted, the recording was not made part of the record on appeal. Respondent, as
the appellant, has the duty to provide us with a sufficiently complete record. Foutch v. O’Bryant,
99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984). In the absence of a complete record, we resolve any doubts caused by
an incomplete record against the appellant. Id. at 392. Accordingly, to the extent respondent
claims the recording does not show her throwing something at petitioner, because the video
recording is not in the record on appeal, we conclude it does, as the trial court found.
¶ 22 In conclusion, we determine that respondent failed to establish prima facie
reversible error. First, she forfeited review of her claim the recording was improperly admitted
because petitioner failed to lay a proper foundation. Second, we conclude the record rebuts
respondent’s argument that she was unable to perceive what was happening in the video when it
was played at the hearing.
¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 24 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 25 Affirmed.
-6-