People v. Eubanks, 2021 IL App (1st) 182549

Defendant Derrick Eubanks and victim Machelle Richards were in an on‑/off dating relationship; on December 10, 2014 a physical struggle occurred in Richards’s apartment.
Richards testified defendant grabbed and choked her, struck her, and took her cell phone and computer during the incident; she produced photos, a ripped shirt, and a voicemail recording that captured her screams.
Corroborating evidence included a neighbor (Tiffany DeBack) who observed Richards’ distressed condition and that defendant had something under his arm, a responding officer who observed the apartment in disarray, a witness who saw defendant follow Richards earlier that day, and prior bad‑acts testimony from a former girlfriend (Yashica Green) about similar choking.
The jury convicted Eubanks of robbery (phone/computer) and domestic battery, acquitted him of home invasion and aggravated domestic battery, and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms.
On appeal Eubanks challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) denial of a motion to strike a juror for cause (later withdrawn), and (3) a Rule 431(b) venire error (court failed to ask whether jurors accepted the presumption of innocence) as plain error.
The appellate court affirmed: it found the evidence sufficient, declined to consider the juror‑for‑cause claim (withdrawn), and held a Rule 431(b) violation was a clear error but not plain error because the evidence was not closely balanced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence (robbery, domestic battery)	State: testimony and corroboration (voicemail, neighbor, officer, prior‑acts) suffice for conviction	Eubanks: Richards’ testimony was contradictory, uncorroborated, and improbable	Affirmed — viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt; corroboration existed before/during/after incident
Denial of motion to strike juror for cause	State: issue waived / not preserved; trial counsel didn’t use a remaining peremptory; not argued as ineffective assistance	Eubanks: denial deprived him of fair trial (claimed below)	Withdrawn by appellant on reply brief; appellate court did not consider the claim
Rule 431(b) venire error — presumption of innocence acceptance	State: trial court instructed and asked jurors general questions; any error harmless/forfeited	Eubanks: court asked if jurors understood presumption but failed to ask if they accepted it; one juror indicated he would initially vote guilty	Court: clear and obvious Rule 431(b) violation (failed to ask acceptance), but not plain error — defendant failed to show the evidence was closely balanced; conviction affirmed

People v. Beauchamp, 241 Ill. 2d 1 (2011) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010) (Rule 431(b) requires a question‑and‑response process giving jurors opportunity to indicate understanding and acceptance)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (2007) (defendant bears burden on appeal to show evidence was closely balanced for plain‑error relief)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing eyewitness identification reliability discussed)
People v. Mays, 91 Ill. 2d 251 (1982) (definition of ordinary battery as physical pain or damage)