People v. Cetwinski, 115 N.E.3d 442

Defendant Edward Cetwinski, an assistant high-school bowling coach, was convicted of criminal sexual assault and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse for sexual acts with a 15‑year‑old student; he gave incriminating statements in a recorded police interview.
Defense sought to introduce a pretrial clinical counselor report indicating mixed risk/mitigating factors; court excluded it as irrelevant to trial issues (risk of recidivism irrelevant at trial).
After closing, the trial court instructed the jury it could take a single smoking break before deliberations and that jurors could not leave once deliberations began; jury returned verdict the same afternoon.
Defendant moved for a new trial claiming the court’s comments hastened the verdict; court denied the motion; defendant was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment and designated a sexual predator under SORA.
On appeal defendant argued (1) the court’s smoking‑related admonitions coerced/hastened the jury and (2) Illinois’s lifetime sex‑offender statutory scheme (SORA and related laws) is punitive and unconstitutional as applied to him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s pre‑deliberation comments hastened or coerced the jury	Court’s admonition was a routine instruction about smoking and not coercive	Cetwinski: repeated warnings that jurors couldn’t leave once deliberations began coerced jurors and hastened verdict	No error: remarks addressed smokers, not a command to confine jurors; no evidence verdict was hastened
Whether forfeiture should be excused under Sprinkle so appellate review is not barred	State: defense could have objected; Sprinkle relief is narrow	Cetwinski: contemporaneous objection would have been futile and risked alienating jury; review should be relaxed	Sprinkle not applied; counsel could have sought sidebar and motion for new trial failed to raise this ground; plain‑error review applied and failed
Whether Illinois’s sex‑offender statutory scheme is punitive and, as applied, disproportionate	State: scheme is regulatory and constitutional	Cetwinski: SORA and related lifelong disabilities are punitive and cruel and unusual as applied	Court adopts recent panels (Tetter, Kochevar) finding the modern scheme punitive but concludes application here is not grossly disproportionate; SORA constitutional as applied to defendant

People v. Golub, 333 Ill. 554 (court may not deliver messages that hasten a verdict)
People v. Sprinkle, 27 Ill. 2d 398 (narrow doctrine relaxing forfeiture when contemporaneous objection would be futile)
People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478 (Sprinkle limited; preservation usually required)
People v. Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d 413 (holding SORA and Notification Law nonpunitive at that time)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (three‑factor proportionality test for Eighth Amendment challenges)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (proportionality principle under Eighth Amendment)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (plain‑error burden to show actual prejudice or bias)
People v. Ramos, 396 Ill. App. 3d 869 (short deliberations alone do not prove court‑induced haste)