2021 IL App (1st) 191609-U No. 1-19-1609 Order filed October 27, 2021 Third Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 15 CR 11501 ) JOHN WATLEY, ) Honorable ) William B. Raines, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice McBride concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder is reversed where the trial court’s failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) when questioning prospective jurors constituted plain error.
¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant John Watley was found guilty of first-degree murder and
sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends his conviction should be
reversed because the trial court failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) when
questioning prospective jurors and denied him the right to a fair trial by telling prospective jurors No. 1-19-1609
they would have to serve on the jury of a month-long civil trial if they disclosed that they could
not be impartial. For the reasons that follow, we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a
new trial.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A grand jury charged defendant with six counts of first-degree murder. Relevant here,
Count I alleged that defendant intentionally shot and killed Anthony Strong without lawful
justification on July 5, 2015, while armed with a firearm.
¶5 A. Jury Selection
¶6 The trial court addressed all prospective jurors together as follows:
“Under the law, the defendant is presumed innocent of the charges against him. The
presumption remains with the defendant in every stage of this trial and your deliberations
on the verdict. It will not be overcome unless and until the jury is convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Does anyone disagree with this fundamental
principal of the law? If you do, please raise your hand.
May the record reflect no one has raised their hand.
The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State carries this burden throughout this case. Does anyone disagree with this
fundamental principle of law? If you do, please raise your hand.
The defendant’s not required to prove his innocence. The defendant need not
present any evidence at all and rely on the presumption of innocence. Does anyone disagree
with this fundamental principle of law? If you do, please raise your hand.
-2- No. 1-19-1609
Let the record reflect no one has raised their hand.
The defendant does not have to testify. Would anyone hold the fact that the
defendant did not testify at trial against the defendant? Does everyone understand and
accept this principle of law? Please raise your hand if you do not understand or accept it.
As jurors, you are the judges of the facts in this case. You alone determine which
witnesses to believe and how much weight to give to the testimony of each witness. For
example, law enforcement officers may testify in this case as witnesses. Their testimony is
to be considered by you just like any other witness. You must not give more or less weight
to such testimony simply because of the occupation of such witnesses. Does anyone
disagree with this principle of law? Please raise your hand if you do not agree.
Let the record reflect no one has raised their hand.”
¶7 Defendant did not object to this questioning.
¶8 During individual questioning of the venire, the court questioned prospective juror James
Bastian as follows:
“[BASTIAN]. I have one neighbor whose son is a Chicago cop.
[THE COURT]. Do you have any conversations with that neighbor’s son?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you talk about the facts of his job and what he does?
Q. The fact that your neighbor’s son is a police officer and you know him, would
that impact your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?
-3- No. 1-19-1609
A. Might be. I’m not sure.
Q. Okay. Do you understand that this gentlemen to my left deserves a fair and
impartial trial?
Q. You don’t know him?
A. No.
Q. You don’t know the facts of this case, right?
Q. Okay. So you’re telling me that because it’s – the type of charges that are here
that you may not be fair and impartial to this man who you don’t know who deserves a fair
trial?
Q. You’re not willing to listen to the facts of this case and be open minded about
it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have a seat.”
¶9 Immediately thereafter, the court had the following exchange with prospective juror
Anthony Ensalaco:
“[ENSALACO]. I’ve had my car stolen three times. Once in front of my house
where I went after the guys. I’ve been robbed in the El train when I was maybe in my 30s.
And I was robbed one prior time when I was a teenager.
-4- No. 1-19-1609
[THE COURT]. The fact that you had those experiences, would that impact your
ability to be fair and impartial?
A. Yes, it would, sir. Sorry.
THE COURT. I’m just going to send – everybody who says they can’t be fair and
impartial, I’m going to send them to the Daley Center so you get stuck on a one-month
civil trial. That’s insane. You don’t know this man. This man deserves a fair trial. This is
a fact-based jury. It’s got nothing to do with you. It’s got nothing to do with your experience
in life. This man deserves a fair trial.
Q. You’re not willing to do that. Am I correct?
A. I didn’t say that, sir. You asked me if it affects me, and it does affect me.
Q. Can you be fair and impartial?
A. By the facts, yes, sir. From experience, no, sir.
Q. Have a seat. I’m just absolutely shocked.”
¶ 10 Defendant did not object during the court’s questioning of either Bastian or Ensalaco. Both
Bastian and Ensalaco were stricken for cause.
¶ 11 B. Trial
¶ 12 1. State’s Case
¶ 13 Yolanda Strong testified Anthony Strong was her husband. 1 She and Anthony lived in a
house on the 9200 block of South Harper Avenue in Chicago. Defendant, whom Yolanda identified
1 Several of the individuals involved in this case, such as Anthony Strong and Yolanda Strong, and John Watley and Antoine Watley, share the same last names. For clarity, we will refer to these individuals by either their first names or full names.
-5- No. 1-19-1609
in court, lived in a house next door. Defendant and Anthony became friends in the early 1990s and
spent time together every day. They sometimes argued and shoved each other when they drank,
but always calmed down and became friendly again. Yolanda never saw defendant and Anthony
become violent with each other prior to this incident.
¶ 14 At approximately 1:00 p.m. on July 5, 2015, Yolanda drove Anthony to their house on the
9200 block of South Harper. When she was sitting on her front porch, she saw Anthony talking to
and drinking beer with a group of approximately seven men, including defendant, near defendant’s
car, which was parked on the street outside his house. Anthony was sober when he arrived, and
Yolanda saw him drink one beer next to defendant’s car.
¶ 15 At some point, defendant told everyone to get away from his car, but Anthony stood by the
car, “tapping” the rear of the car with open hands “like bongos.” Yolanda saw defendant go into
his house and return with “a big knife” approximately two and a half feet long. Defendant “hit”
Anthony with the blade of the knife twice on his left side but did not injure him. Anthony was
unarmed. Antoine Watley, defendant’s nephew, pulled defendant back and took the knife from
him. Defendant went inside his house.
¶ 16 Approximately 10 minutes later, defendant exited his house and sat on his front stoop,
facing Anthony. He asked Anthony, “[Y]ou still f*****g with me?” Yolanda saw defendant reach
into his left jacket pocket, pull out a silver firearm, point it at Anthony, and fire one time. Anthony
fell and Yolanda ran up to him; he was lying on his right side in the street. Anthony “turned over
and showed [her] the bullet hole” but was unable to speak. Defendant walked to the sidewalk and
Yolanda heard him say, “Let the motherf****r die.”
-6- No. 1-19-1609
¶ 17 Yolanda called 911 and a female police officer arrived shortly thereafter. The officer exited
her police vehicle and asked who shot Anthony; defendant said, “I did it.” Paramedics arrived and
transported Anthony to the hospital, where he died.
¶ 18 In a photograph, Yolanda identified her and Anthony’s house, as well as defendant’s house
one door to the south. This photograph depicts two single-family homes next door to each other.
In front of defendant’s front door is a one-step stoop, and his front yard is surrounded by a black
fence and a gate with vertical bars. Yolanda also identified defendant’s car parked on the street in
front of his house. This photograph depicts a maroon sedan parked in front of the gate leading to
defendant’s front yard, on the side of the street nearest his house, with the front of the car facing
north toward Yolanda and Anthony’s house. Yolanda indicated that Anthony was standing on the
passenger side of the car, between the taillights and the rear wheel, facing across the trunk toward
defendant’s house, when defendant shot him. She also indicated defendant was on his front stoop
when he shot Anthony. The State moved these photographs into evidence.
¶ 19 In another photograph, Yolanda identified defendant’s car parked on the side of the street
nearest his house, and Anthony’s red pickup truck parked on the far side of the street. The front of
Anthony’s truck is approximately even with the rear of defendant’s car. Defendant moved this
photograph into evidence.
¶ 20 Antoine Watley testified that defendant, whom he identified in court, is his uncle. Antoine
lived with defendant on the 9200 block of South Harper in July 2015. Anthony and Yolanda Strong
lived in a house next door to defendant and Antoine’s house. Defendant and Anthony had known
each other for as long as Antoine could remember and “always had little arguments,” particularly
-7- No. 1-19-1609
when they drank together, but got along shortly thereafter. Antoine had never seen defendant and
Anthony become violent toward each other prior to this incident.
¶ 21 On the afternoon of July 5, 2015, Antoine drank with defendant and Anthony near
defendant’s car, which was parked on the street in front of their house. Antoine drank two beers
and was not intoxicated. Defendant drank “a couple of beers” and “they only had like half a pint
of” vodka. Anthony began drinking approximately 30 minutes after he arrived; he drank a “red
apple,” “Seagram’s hundred proof,” and beer.
¶ 22 At approximately 2:30 p.m., Anthony and a man named “Chip” got into two arguments in
defendant’s front yard. When defendant stepped between Anthony and “Chip,” Anthony
“overpowered” defendant, grabbed his shoulders, and pushed him to the ground. Antoine helped
defendant up, defendant and Anthony “had words,” and Anthony left the yard.
¶ 23 Later that afternoon, Anthony began “hammering” on the back of defendant’s parked car
with one closed fist, “telling him to c’mon, c’mon. Let’s out here, let’s fight.” Antoine did not see
anything in Anthony’s hands. Defendant approached Anthony from his yard holding a two-foot-
long machete and tapped Anthony twice on the arm with the flat of the blade. Anthony was not
injured. Antoine grabbed the machete from defendant’s hand and took defendant inside his house.
¶ 24 Antoine went back outside and saw that Anthony “was mad, but he was just walking
around.” Defendant then exited his house and sat on his front stoop, and Anthony started beating
on the trunk of defendant’s car with a closed fist again. Defendant told Anthony to stop hitting his
car, but Anthony ignored him. Antoine saw defendant stand up with a firearm in his hand.
Defendant cocked the firearm and aimed it at Anthony. Anthony did not have anything in his hands
when defendant aimed the firearm at him. Antoine ran toward a back alley and heard one gunshot.
-8- No. 1-19-1609
¶ 25 Antoine then ran to his neighbor’s house and saw defendant at the front gate of his own
yard with the firearm in his hand. Antoine took the firearm out of defendant’s hand and removed
a bullet and the magazine. He placed the firearm on the front stoop of defendant’s house and took
the bullet and magazine inside to his bedroom. Antoine returned to the front door of the house and
saw police on scene; he heard defendant say, “[Y]eah, I shot him.” A female police officer asked
Antoine about the magazine, and he gave it to her. Antoine identified defendant’s firearm and the
magazine in court.
¶ 26 In photographs, Antoine identified his and defendant’s house, as well as defendant’s
maroon Cadillac parked in front of their house, as it was on July 5, 2015. Antoine indicated
Anthony was standing at the rear of defendant’s car, between the taillights and the rear passenger-
side wheel, facing across the trunk of the car toward defendant, who was inside his front gate,
when Anthony was “hammering” on the back of the car.
¶ 27 Chicago police detective Shaneice Neighbors testified she was on patrol, in uniform, and
driving an unmarked police vehicle at approximately 4:00 p.m. on July 5, 2015, when she
responded to a call of a person shot on the 9200 block of South Harper. She arrived within three
minutes and saw Anthony lying in the middle of the street, not moving, and his wife, Yolanda,
standing next to him. Neighbors asked Yolanda who shot her husband, and she pointed to
defendant, whom Neighbors identified in court. Neighbors saw defendant standing on the sidewalk
outside his house. She walked toward him; he said, “I did it,” and lifted his shirt. Neighbors saw a
silver firearm with a black rubber handle in his waistband. She removed the firearm, which had no
magazine, from his waistband and handcuffed him. Neighbors identified the firearm she recovered.
-9- No. 1-19-1609
¶ 28 Neighbors also identified a photograph of the scene. She indicated Anthony was lying in
the middle of the street, next to the rear of defendant’s car, when she arrived. Neighbors also
indicated defendant was standing on the sidewalk next to the fence when she arrived. The State
moved this photograph into evidence.
¶ 29 Officer Christopher Paschal testified he was on duty, in uniform, and driving a marked
police vehicle on July 5, 2015. At approximately 4:00 p.m., he and his partner responded to a call
of a person shot on the 9200 block of South Harper. When Paschal arrived, he saw a person who
had been shot lying in the street, as well as Neighbors interacting with defendant, whom Paschal
identified in court. Neighbors had recovered an unloaded firearm, which she handed to Paschal’s
partner. Paschal and his partner also received a magazine with ammunition in it and a live bullet
from the chamber of the firearm. He and his partner inventoried these items. Paschal identified the
firearm, magazine, and 10 live bullets in court, and the State moved them into evidence.
¶ 30 Sergeant Jerry Doskocz testified he was on duty as an evidence technician on the evening
of July 5, 2015. Dosckoz recovered a fired cartridge case in the front yard of the house to the south
of defendant’s house, which he inventoried. He also saw a blood stain on the street in front of
defendant’s house. In a series of photographs, Dosckoz identified where he found the fired
cartridge case the front yard of defendant’s neighbor’s house and the blood stain in the middle of
South Harper. He also identified a photograph of defendant’s firearm, magazine, and 10 bullets,
and confirmed it accurately depicted how those items appeared when he saw them in the back of
a police vehicle on July 5, 2015. The State moved these photographs into evidence.
¶ 31 Dr. Ponni Arunkumar testified she was the Chief Medical Examiner at the Cook County
Medical Examiner’s office. The court qualified her as an expert in forensic pathology.
- 10 - No. 1-19-1609
¶ 32 Dr. Arunkumar performed an autopsy of Anthony Strong on July 6, 2015. She observed
one gunshot wound to Anthony’s right chest and recovered a bullet from his left back, which she
provided to police. The bullet travelled front to back, right to left, and downward. The trajectory
of the bullet was consistent with, among other positions, Anthony having been “bent forward with
[his] chest down, [his] right shoulder forward, [his] left shoulder back in a sort of lunging forward
position.” Dr. Arunkumar identified this bullet in court and the State moved it into evidence. There
was no evidence that Anthony had been shot at close range and no defensive wounds on his body.
Toxicology revealed an alcohol level of 0.225 in Anthony’s blood and an alcohol level of 0.352 in
the vitreous humor of his eye. Anthony’s vitreous alcohol level reflected that his blood alcohol
level was at least 0.352 prior to his death, more than four times the legal limit to drive. Dr.
Arunkumar determined the manner of death was homicide and the cause of death was a gunshot
wound to the chest.
¶ 33 Dr. Arunkumar identified Anthony’s body in a photograph, which depicts one gunshot
wound slightly to the right of the center of the chest. The State moved this photograph into
evidence.
¶ 34 The parties stipulated evidence technician Matthew Savage tested a firearm, magazine, and
ammunition inventoried in connection with this case and determined they were negative for latent
fingerprint impressions.
¶ 35 Detective Nathan Poole administered a gunshot residue kit to defendant’s hands on July 5,
2015, and inventoried it. Illinois State Police forensic scientist Mary Wong tested the gunshot
residue kit and found it was negative for gunshot residue particles. She opined that defendant may
- 11 - No. 1-19-1609
not have discharged a firearm with either hand and, if he did, then gunshot residue particles were
either not deposited on his hands, removed, or not detected by testing procedures.
¶ 36 Evidence technician Elizabeth Dawson received a fired bullet from the Cook County
Medical Examiner’s office on July 6, 2015, and inventoried it. Illinois State Police forensic
scientist Dianna Pratt received a 9-millimeter Luger semiautomatic pistol, a fired bullet, a fired
cartridge case, a magazine, and 10 9-millimeter Luger cartridges inventoried in connection with
this case. She determined the bullet and fired cartridge case were fired from that firearm.
¶ 37 2. Defense’s Case
¶ 38 Defendant testified he was 62 years old. He was injured in a 1990 car accident that left him
with a plate in his right knee and screws and a rod in his pelvis. After that accident, defendant’s
father bought him a Cadillac, which had sentimental value to him. Defendant met Anthony Strong
in 1988 or 1989. In July 2015, defendant lived in a house on the 9200 block of South Harper with
his brother and two nephews, including his nephew, Antoine. Anthony occasionally came to check
on a house next door but did not live there.
¶ 39 On the morning of July 5, 2015, defendant saw what he believed to be people breaking into
his garage, so he went outside with his firearm to investigate. His firearm was loaded with one
round in the chamber but did not have its magazine inserted. Defendant saw that nothing was
missing from his garage so, at approximately 10:50 a.m., he placed his firearm in the bushes in his
front yard because he was going to meet his friend Tony in front of his house. Tony used a
wheelchair and died before trial. Defendant met Tony near the back of defendant’s Cadillac, which
was parked on the street. Defendant then walked, using a cane, half a block to buy half a pint of
- 12 - No. 1-19-1609
alcohol for him and Tony. Defendant returned to his block at approximately 11:15 a.m. and drank
the half pint of alcohol with Tony.
¶ 40 At approximately the same time, Anthony Strong arrived and began “bullying and picking
on” defendant. Defendant also saw Anthony pull Tony out of his wheelchair near the back of
defendant’s car at some point that afternoon. Defendant’s friend Richard Aldridge, who went by
the nickname “Chick,” arrived on scene between 1:00 and 1:15 p.m. When defendant was sitting
on the driver-side trunk of his Cadillac, Strong hit defendant with a closed fist five times on his
left hip, which knocked defendant to the ground. When defendant was on the ground, Anthony hit
him twice in the head with a closed fist. Defendant did not know why Anthony was hitting him.
He was “in shock,” “terrified,” and “thought [he] was going to die right there” because his old car
accident injuries made it impossible for him to defend himself. Defendant suffered bruises and
swelling on his hip and his right eyebrow.
¶ 41 Defendant’s nephew Antoine helped him up and took him inside the gate of defendant’s
front yard. As defendant was trying to close and lock the gate, Anthony ran up and struck defendant
on the right side of his jaw so hard that he fell back onto his stoop. Defendant initially testified that
Anthony opened the gate before hitting him in the jaw, but later testified that Anthony struck him
“straight through” the gate. Defendant “thought [he] was going to die” because Anthony “was
acting crazy.” Defendant was “in excruciating pain” and was unable to stand up.
¶ 42 Anthony then walked to his own truck on the street and opened the driver-side door. It
looked like Anthony was “getting something” out of his truck, but defendant could not see what.
Defendant thought that Anthony was “getting a gun” and was “in fear of [his] life.” Defendant
- 13 - No. 1-19-1609
knew that Anthony had a firearm and had seen him with a firearm two or three times in the past.
He also knew that Anthony had been “locked up for murder” using a firearm in 1989.
¶ 43 Anthony began walking back toward defendant and it “look[ed] like something was in his
hands,” but defendant could not tell what. Defendant reached into the bushes and grabbed his
firearm. Anthony was “a distance” from defendant, “across the street from where his truck was
parked.” Defendant then shot Anthony because he was “scared for [his] life and believed Anthony
“was going to kill [him].” Defendant was not trying to kill Anthony; he was just trying to stop
Anthony from attacking him again.
¶ 44 Defendant pulled himself up and “hopp[ed] alongside the wall” to go inside his house,
where he called police. Defendant retrieved his firearm’s magazine, but his nephew took the
magazine from him before defendant spoke to police. When defendant heard police outside, he
walked outside “to tell the officer that [he] had shot” Anthony. Defendant’s firearm was in his
waistband when he told a female officer that he shot Anthony.
¶ 45 In a photograph, defendant indicated he put his firearm in a flowerbed approximately two
feet from his front stoop. He also identified himself in two booking photographs.
¶ 46 Richard Aldridge testified defendant, whom he identified in court, was his “old friend” and
“drinking buddy.” Aldridge’s nickname was “Chick.” He acknowledged he had been convicted of
failure to register as a sex offender in 2017 and 2009. Aldridge went to defendant’s house between
10:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on July 5, 2015, and drank with defendant and Tony around defendant’s
car. Anthony Strong arrived 10 to 15 minutes after Aldridge and “terrorized [them] about like
subjects of like [defendant’s] car. He [was] messing with Tony in the wheelchair.”
- 14 - No. 1-19-1609
¶ 47 Anthony was drinking on July 5, 2015, and got into an argument with Tony and pulled him
out of his wheelchair. Anthony then got into an argument with Aldridge in defendant’s front yard
and shoved him in the chest with both hands. Aldridge acknowledged that he did not mention
Anthony pushed him when he spoke to Assistant State’s Attorneys about this incident. When
Anthony stopped pushing him, Aldridge went around the back of defendant’s house, got on the
bus, and left. Aldridge believed that defendant and Anthony were arguing when he left defendant’s
house, but he never saw Anthony push defendant that day.
¶ 48 Yolanda testified Anthony hit her in the face during an argument at 3:00 a.m. on January
2, 1996. She acknowledged she signed a criminal complaint against Anthony attesting he hit her
in the head with a telephone and his closed fist. Anthony was arrested but not convicted in that
case because Yolanda did not go to court.
¶ 49 Dr. Luke Kopulous was qualified as an expert in radiology. He examined defendant’s X
rays at Cermak Health Services in March 2016. Dr. Kopulous observed screws in the back of
defendant’s pelvis and hardware in his left hip and below his right knee, as well as arthritis and
bone spurs in his left hip.
¶ 50 3. State’s Rebuttal Case
¶ 51 Chicago police detective Edward Killeen testified that he was assigned to investigate the
shooting of Anthony Strong on July 5, 2015. He interviewed defendant, whom he identified in
court, at a police station at 5:38 p.m. that day. Killeen did not observe any injuries to defendant.
He testified booking photographs accurately depicted how defendant appeared on July 5, 2015,
and that defendant’s “whole face looks red” in those photographs. Killeen acknowledged that one
- 15 - No. 1-19-1609
“could interpret” defendant’s booking photographs as showing “some swelling over his left eye.”
The State moved defendant’s booking photographs into evidence.
¶ 52 Mike Pekara testified that he interviewed Aldridge while working as an Assistant State’s
Attorney on August 6, 2018. Aldridge stated that he had a verbal altercation with Anthony Strong
on July 5, 2015, but never said that altercation became physical.
¶ 53 4. Closing Argument and Verdict
¶ 54 In closing, defendant conceded that he shot and killed Anthony Strong but argued that he
did so in self-defense, and that the jury could find that his belief in the need for self-defense was
either reasonable or unreasonable. The State contended that defendant intentionally shot Anthony
solely out of anger and that defendant’s version of events was not credible.
¶ 55 After being instructed on first-degree murder and second-degree murder based on an
unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, the jury found defendant guilty of first-degree
murder and found that he personally discharged firearm.
¶ 56 C. Posttrial and Sentencing
¶ 57 Defendant filed a motion for a new trial , which argued in relevant part that the trial court
erred in admonishing the prospective jurors that they would be sent “to the Daley Center [to] get
stuck on a one-month civil trial” if they indicated they could not be fair. Defendant’s motion for a
new trial did not mention the court’s Rule 431(b) instructions and defendant did not raise that issue
at the hearing on his motion. The court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial and sentenced
him to 45 years’ imprisonment.
¶ 58 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which the court denied.
¶ 59 Defendant timely appealed.
- 16 - No. 1-19-1609
¶ 60 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 61 A. Rule 431(b) Questioning
¶ 62 On appeal, defendant first contends his conviction should be reversed and this case should
be remanded for a new trial because the trial court did not comply with Rule 431(b) and People v.
Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (1984), when it failed to ask the prospective jurors if they understood and
accepted the four principles of criminal justice set forth in Rule 431(b).
¶ 63 Rule 431(b) requires the trial court to “ask each potential juror, individually or in a group,
whether that juror understands and accepts the following principles: (1) that the defendant is
presumed innocent of the charge(s) against him or her; (2) that before a defendant can be convicted
the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) that the defendant is not
required to offer any evidence on his or her own behalf; and (4) that if a defendant does not testify
it cannot be held against him or her.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012). Rule 431(b) imposes
“ ‘an affirmative sua sponte duty on the trial court to ask potential jurors in each and every case
whether they understand and accept’ ” these principles and requires the trial court to give each
venireperson an opportunity to respond whether he or she understands and accepts these principles.
People v. Magallanes, 409 Ill. App. 3d 720, 729-30 (2011) (quoting People v. Graham, 393 Ill.
App. 3d 258, 273 (2009)). We review the trial court’s compliance with Rule 431(b) de novo.
People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 41.
¶ 64 Defendant acknowledges he failed to preserve this issue for review by not objecting during
jury selection and failing to raise the issue in his posttrial motion. See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d
176, 186 (1988). Nevertheless, he contends we should engage in plain error review.
- 17 - No. 1-19-1609
¶ 65 Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error when
either (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and 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) 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. Birge, 2021 IL 125644, ¶ 24 (not yet released for
publication and subject to revision or withdrawal). The first step under either prong of the plain
error doctrine is to determine whether an error occurred. Id.
¶ 66 1. Whether Error Occurred
¶ 67 Our supreme court has explained that a trial court’s Rule 431(b) questioning must
determine whether the prospective jurors both understand and accept the four principles outlined
in the Rule. In People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, the trial court asked the prospective jurors
whether they “[h]ad any problems” with or “believe[d] in” the Rule 431(b) principles. (Internal
quotation marks omitted). Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 8. The supreme court found that this phrasing
did not comply with Rule 431(b) and constituted clear error because the “rule requires the trial
court to ask potential jurors whether they understand and accept the four Zehr principles.” Id. ¶
49. Similarly, in Belknap, the supreme court found that the trial court asking prospective jurors
whether they “had any disagreement or quarrel with the principles” of Rule 431(b) was error.
Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 46. In People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, our supreme court
explained that “[w]hile it may be arguable that the court’s asking for disagreement, and getting
none, is equivalent to juror acceptance of the principles, the trial court’s failure to ask jurors if
they understood the four Rule 431(b) principles is error in and of itself.” (Emphasis in original.)
- 18 - No. 1-19-1609
Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 32. In People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010), the supreme
court found that the trial court violated Rule 431(b) by asking “the prospective jurors if they
understood the presumption of innocence,” but not “whether they accepted that principle.”
Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 607.
¶ 68 The State concedes, and we agree, that the trial court’s Rule 431(b) questioning constituted
error. All but one of the court’s Rule 431(b) questions asked whether the prospective jurors
“disagree[d]” with the relevant principles of criminal justice, not whether they accepted and
understood those principles. Under the Illinois Supreme Court authority outlined above, this
phrasing was improper. Accordingly, we find the trial court’s questioning of the prospective jurors
did not comply with Rule 431(b) and constituted error.
¶ 69 2. First-Prong Plain Error
¶ 70 Having found error, we next consider whether reversal is warranted. Generally, under the
plain error doctrine, reversal is warranted when there is a clear or obvious error and either (1) the
evidence is so closely balanced that the error would change the outcome of the case, or (2) the
error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial. Birge, 2021 IL 125644, ¶ 24.
However, “[a] Rule 431(b) violation is not cognizable under the second prong of the plain error
doctrine, absent evidence that the violation produced a biased jury.” Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 52;
see also Birge, 2021 IL 125644, ¶ 24 (“[A] violation of Rule 431(b) is not a second-prong,
structural error”); Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 33 (“[T]he second prong of plain-error review
does not provide a basis for excusing defendant’s procedural default” of a Rule 431(b) violation.).
Defendant contends first-prong plain error occurred because the evidence was closely balanced
- 19 - No. 1-19-1609
where the jury could have found unreasonable self-defense, which would have resulted in the jury
finding him guilty of second-degree murder instead of first-degree murder.
¶ 71 When a defendant claims first-prong plain error, we must decide whether the evidence was
so closely balanced the error alone severely threatened to tip the scales of justice. Sebby, 2017 IL
119445, ¶ 51. We do not presume prejudice; rather, the defendant “must show that the quantum of
evidence presented by the State against the defendant rendered the evidence ‘closely balanced.’ ”
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (2007) (quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 193
(2005)). In determining whether the evidence was closely balanced, we evaluate the totality of the
evidence and conduct a qualitative, commonsense assessment of it. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶¶
52-53. Thus, we assess “the evidence on the elements of the charged offense or offenses, along
with any evidence regarding the witnesses’ credibility.” Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 53.
¶ 72 Defendant was charged with first-degree murder under section 9-1(a)(1) of the Criminal
Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2014)). Thus, the State had to prove he intentionally
killed Anthony Strong without lawful justification. See 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2014).
¶ 73 Defendant did not deny he shot and killed Anthony Strong; rather, he advanced a theory of
self-defense. To establish complete self-defense, a defendant must show: (1) force was threatened
against a person; (2) the person was not the aggressor; (3) the danger of harm to the person was
imminent; (4) the threatened force was unlawful; (5) the person actually and subjectively believed
a danger existed, which required the use of the force applied; and (6) his beliefs were objectively
reasonable. People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 35. Relevant here, to be found guilty of
second-degree murder premised on an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, a defendant
must only prove the existence of the first five factors. People v. Castellano, 2015 IL App (1st)
- 20 - No. 1-19-1609
133874, ¶ 149. The question before us, therefore, is whether the evidence was closely balanced on
the issue of whether defendant had an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense.
¶ 74 We find that the evidence was closely balanced on this point. Defendant claimed that he
shot Anthony because, after Anthony beat him about the body and head for no reason, defendant
saw Anthony go to his truck, appear to retrieve an object, and walk toward him with it. Defendant
did not know what was in Anthony’s hand, but he believed it was a firearm because he had seen
Anthony with a firearm on multiple prior occasions and knew Anthony had shot and killed
someone in the past. Defendant was the only witness who testified to these facts. Yolanda and
Antoine did not testify Anthony went to his truck; rather, defendant shot him from a distance when
Anthony was at the rear of defendant’s Cadillac. Yolanda and Antoine agreed Anthony was
unarmed when defendant shot him, and police recovered no weapons from or near Anthony’s
body. Thus, defendant’s testimony supporting his claim of self-defense was uncorroborated by
direct evidence.
¶ 75 However, the physical evidence corroborated other aspects of defendant’s account. For
example, Dr. Arunkumar testified that Anthony’s blood alcohol level was at least 0.352 prior to
his death, more than four times the legal limit to drive in Illinois. This evidence indicated Anthony
was highly intoxicated on July 5, 2015, and corroborated defendant’s claim that Anthony was
behaving “crazy” and violently. The alcohol evidence also undermined Yolanda’s claim that
Anthony was sober when he arrived on South Harper and only drank one beer thereafter. A
photograph introduced by defendant confirmed that Anthony’s truck was parked across the street
from defendant’s car, supporting an inference that Anthony could have retrieved an object from
his truck and quickly approached defendant, as defendant claimed. In addition, Detective Killeen
- 21 - No. 1-19-1609
acknowledged that one “could interpret” defendant’s booking photograph as depicting swelling
above his left eye, supporting defendant’s testimony that Anthony struck him in the head.
¶ 76 Moreover, eyewitness testimony supported defendant’s claim that Anthony instigated
violence on July 5, 2015. For example, Antoine testified that Anthony pushed defendant to the
ground in defendant’s front yard. Similarly, Aldridge corroborated defendant’s testimony that
Anthony was behaving aggressively. No witness disputed defendant’s testimony that he had seen
Anthony with a firearm on multiple prior occasions, or that he knew Anthony had murdered
someone in the past. Thus, both physical and eyewitness evidence supported defendant’s testimony
that Anthony was highly intoxicated and instigated violence in the moments leading up to the
shooting. Altogether, the evidence presented a muddled picture of what occurred on July 5, 2015.
Both sides presented accounts that were plausible and corroborated in some respects, yet
implausible and uncorroborated in others.
¶ 77 This case is similar to People v. Cook, 262 Ill. App. 3d 1005 (1994). In Cook, the defendant
was charged with first-degree murder and asserted self-defense, claiming the victim, his girlfriend,
attacked him with a knife. Cook, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 1006, 1014. The jury found defendant guilty
of second-degree murder. Id. at 1015. On appeal, we found that the trial court’s failure to instruct
the jury that the State had the burden to prove the defendant was not justified in using force
constituted plain error where the evidence was closely balanced. Id. at 1019. Specifically, we found
that the evidence was closely balanced because “[t]ests showed that the deceased’s blood contained
a high level of alcohol. These results enhance[d] the likelihood that the deceased was the initial
aggressor in the physical altercation.” Id. at 1016. Moreover, the defendant knew the victim had
killed a man before and the parties stipulated she had been convicted of manslaughter. Id. The
- 22 - No. 1-19-1609
defendant had also seen the victim brandishing a knife on a prior occasion. Id. On the other hand,
the medical and photographic evidence suggested the struggle between the defendant and the
victim was one-sided, which “support[ed] the State’s theory that defendant did not act in self-
defense.” Id. All the factors that led us to conclude the evidence was closely balanced in Cook are
present in this case, so we reach the same conclusion. The evidence in this case was closely
balanced on the issue of unreasonable self-defense.
¶ 78 The State argues the evidence was not closely balanced because defendant’s version of
events was implausible and “bizarre.” However, as noted above, certain aspects of defendant’s
account were corroborated by extrinsic physical evidence. In addition, a reasonable jury could
have found the State’s theory to be implausible. The State asked the jury to believe that defendant
killed his close friend of some 25 years, with whom he had never been seriously violent, out of
anger over Anthony touching his car.
¶ 79 The State also points to discrepancies in defendant’s testimony to argue that the evidence
was not closely balanced. For example, the State contends that defendant testified the shooting
occurred in the morning, whereas Detective Neighbors testified she was notified of the shooting
in the afternoon. The State also notes that defendant testified his firearm was loaded with one bullet
when Officer Paschal’s testimony implied it was loaded with two. However, “[m]inor
inconsistencies” in a defendant’s testimony do not make his account of events “fanciful.” See
Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 61. The time of the shooting was immaterial to defendant’s belief in the
need for self-defense and there was no dispute he shot Anthony with one bullet.
¶ 80 The cases the State cites have little bearing on whether the evidence was closely balanced
in this case because none of them involve murder or claims of self-defense. See, e.g., Jackson,
- 23 - No. 1-19-1609
2019 IL App (1st) 161745 (defendant charged with possession of heroin with intent to deliver);
People v. Montgomery, 2018 IL App (2d) 160541 (defendant charged with DUI); People v. Lopez,
2012 IL App (1st) 101395 (defendant charged with criminal sexual abuse and unlawful restraint).
Accordingly, we find the evidence was closely balanced and the trial court’s failure to comply
with Rule 431(b) constituted plain error; thus, we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for
a new trial.
¶ 81 B. Comments Regarding Prospective Jurors
¶ 82 Because we reverse defendant’s conviction due to the trial court’s failure to comply with
Rule 431(b), we need not address defendant’s contention that the court’s comment about
prospective jurors’ ability to be fair was reversible error or defendant’s claim of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel.
¶ 83 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 84 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County
and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 85 Reversed and remanded.
- 24 -