People v. Blair
952 N.E.2d 62
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Blair was convicted by a Winnebago County jury of two counts of aggravated domestic battery based on permanent disfigurement and great bodily harm; he was acquitted of a knife-wound count.
- The trial court vacated the permanent-disfigurement conviction under the one-act, one-crime rule and sentenced Blair to seven years’ imprisonment.
- Blair appealed arguing (1) Rule 431(b) voir dire noncompliance, and (2) Rule 412 disclosure of a doctor’s expert status.
- The appellate court initially found Rule 431(b) violation requiring reversal and remanded, then on supervisory order reconsidered and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full.
- The final, published opinion on remand affirms Blair’s conviction and sentence without further reversal.
- The record shows Blair testified at trial and the jury was instructed on self-defense principles under Illinois law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voir dire violated Rule 431(b). | Blair | Blair | Rule 431(b) violated; plain-error not established; no reversal. |
| Whether the State violated Rule 412 by calling Dr. Steffen without proper expert disclosure. | Blair | Blair | No Rule 412 violation; treating-physician testimony; disclosure sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984) (established Zehr principles for voir dire questions in criminal trials)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (Rule 431(b) requires specific, responsive inquiry; plain-error assessment)
- People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173 (2009) (Rule 431(b) structure and enforcement; interpretation of Zehr principles)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (2005) (plain-error doctrine; closely balanced evidence)
- People v. Cortez, 361 Ill.App.3d 456 (2005) (treating physician vs. expert distinction for Rule 412 disclosures)
- Tzystuck v. Chicago Transit Authority, 124 Ill.2d 226 (1988) (treating physician vs. expert testimony distinction; disclosure considerations)
- Cochran v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 203 Ill.App.3d 935 (1990) (treating physician treated as non-expert for disclosure purposes)