People v. Daniel, 109 N.E.3d 242

Michael L. Daniel was tried for multiple offenses arising from an April 11, 2015 disturbance; the jury acquitted him of aggravated battery to a police officer but convicted him of aggravated battery to a community policing volunteer and sentenced him to 4½ years.
At voir dire the trial court read the four Rule 431(b) "Zehr" principles and asked each venire member whether they heard and "agreed with" them, but it did not ask whether they understood the principles.
Multiple police officers testified the defendant pushed or kicked officers; several defense witnesses (friends, family, and neighbors) testified defendant did not push, punch, or kick anyone and was trying to calm the situation.
Witness accounts conflicted on key points (who approached whom, whether officers were swarmed, whether defendant shoved or kicked anyone); some officers corroborated each other but neighbors generally did not identify defendant as an aggressor.
Defendant did not object at trial to the Rule 431(b) voir dire questions but raised the issue on appeal, arguing plain error because the evidence was closely balanced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) by asking jurors if they "agreed with" the Zehr principles but not whether they "understood" them	Asking jurors if they agreed with the principles was sufficient and preserved the trial court’s method; any failure was not preserved as error	Court failed to ask prospective jurors whether they understood the principles, violating Rule 431(b)	Court found error: Rule 431(b) requires asking whether jurors both understand and accept the principles; asking only agreement was insufficient under Belknap/Wilmington precedent
Whether the Rule 431(b) error constituted plain error warranting reversal despite forfeiture	The error was not preserved; the evidence was not closely balanced and therefore plain-error relief is inappropriate	The evidence was closely balanced, so the unpreserved Rule 431(b) error is plain error requiring reversal	The court held the evidence was closely balanced (a credibility contest) and, under the first prong of plain-error review, reversal and remand for a new trial were required

Zehr v. People, 103 Ill.2d 472 (establishing the Zehr principles required in jury voir dire)
Thompson v. People, 238 Ill.2d 598 (explaining Rule 431(b) requires both understanding and acceptance)
Blankenship v. People, 406 Ill. App.3d 578 (holding that asking jurors whether they "agreed with" principles can imply acceptance)
Naylor v. People, 229 Ill.2d 584 (discussing when outcomes depend on credibility contests)
Walker v. People, 232 Ill.2d 113 (plain-error framework and first step: determine whether error occurred)