People v. Encalado, 2018 IL 122059

Theophil Encalado was tried for multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault; the trial focused on six counts involving victim Y.C.; other-crimes evidence as to two additional victims (C.C., S.A.) was admitted; defendant had a prior predatory sexual assault conviction.
At trial the State presented DNA and eyewitness identification tying Encalado to assaults; C.C.’s assault was linked by DNA; Y.C. identified Encalado in photo and physical lineups.
Encalado testified and asserted the encounters were consensual exchanges for money/drugs (i.e., prostitution), claiming he later tried to take back payments; he admitted prior conviction but denied forcible assault.
Before trial defense counsel asked the court to question the venire whether evidence the defendant had patronized prostitutes would prevent them from being fair; the trial court refused, ruling the question improperly commented on specific evidence.
The jury convicted Encalado on three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault; the appellate court reversed, finding the refusal to ask the prostitution-bias question an abuse of discretion and remanding for a new trial.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the proposed voir dire question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Encalado)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to ask venire whether evidence defendant patronized prostitutes would prevent fair consideration	Denial was proper; voir dire need not include the proffered question because it would ask jurors to comment on specific evidence and the court’s general voir dire sufficed	Jurors might harbor bias against patrons of prostitutes; questioning was necessary to uncover bias and secure impartial jury	No abuse of discretion; refusal did not render voir dire fundamentally unfair — question would have preargued a disputed fact and no legal authority shows patronage of prostitutes produces the type of juror bias requiring specific inquiry
Whether voir dire must probe bias about facts that are disputed at trial (i.e., whether victims were prostitutes)	Trial court’s general questions about impartiality and ability to follow instructions were adequate; specific factual questioning is impermissible when it pre-argues disputed facts	Needed to reveal bias relevant to credibility and fairness, similar to required questioning about gang membership in Strain	Specific voir dire about disputed factual matters is generally disallowed; unlike gang membership (an undisputed, central theme in Strain), prostitution here was contested and not an established area of juror-specific prejudice

Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408 (establishes voir dire purpose to detect juror bias)
Strain v. People, 194 Ill. 2d 467 (Illinois 2000) (when prejudicial, pervasive gang evidence requires specific voir dire about gang bias)
Cloutier v. People, 156 Ill. 2d 483 (voir dire aims to find jurors whose minds are closed by bias)
Peeples v. People, 155 Ill. 2d 422 (racial issues require voir dire only when inextricably bound to trial)
Lobb v. People, 17 Ill. 2d 287 (voir dire permitted to ascertain juror bias)
Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589 (voir dire on race required only where race is central to the trial)
Mapp v. People, 283 Ill. App. 3d 979 (prohibits voir dire that functions as a preliminary final argument)
Bowel v. People, 111 Ill. 2d 58 (questions designed to educate jurors on defense theory are generally prohibited)