People v. Evans, 2017 IL App (1st) 150091

Defendant Keywani Evans was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and related weapons counts after officers chased a man who dropped a cell phone and left a white track jacket snagged on a fence; officers recovered a .32-caliber handgun in the jacket and a wallet containing Evans’s ID in a pocket.
The State presented officers who identified Evans as the person who fled and testified they found the jacket, gun, and wallet together; the State admitted Evans’s prior felony and lack of a FOID card and rested.
Evans testified denying presence at the scene and that the jacket, wallet, and gun were his; after the defense rested, the court asked the State to produce the wallet and continued the trial one day so the State could recall an officer to identify the wallet and ID.
The State recalled Officer Bialata, who identified the jacket, wallet, and ID as those recovered; Evans then testified in sur-rebuttal that the wallet and ID were his but that he had lost the wallet before the incident and had received a replacement ID.
The bench trial court found the officers’ testimony credible, discredited Evans’s account, convicted him of unlawful possession by a felon, denied a new-trial motion alleging prejudicial rebuttal evidence and judge advocacy, and sentenced Evans to four years’ imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Evans)	Held
Whether the trial court abandoned neutrality by requesting the State produce the wallet after resting	Court’s request was a permissible, impartial effort to see relevant evidence; trial court may permit reopening and aid fact-finding	Court improperly acted as prosecutor by prompting State to present corroborating evidence after its case was closed, denying fair trial	Trial court did not assume prosecutorial role; requesting the wallet was within discretion and did not prejudice defendant
Whether the challenge is forfeited and/or reviewable under plain-error doctrine	Issue was preserved sufficiently by posttrial motion; alternatively, any forfeiture is not reversible because no error occurred	Objected after rebuttal and in new-trial motion; invokes Sprinkle exception that judge conduct may excuse forfeiture	Court found forfeiture argument unnecessary because, on the merits, no reversible error occurred; Sprinkle and plain-error doctrines not invoked to reverse

Kuntz v. 239 Ill. App. 3d 587 (Ill. App. 1993) (trial court sua sponte reopened State’s case to cure an evidentiary omission; appellate court found judge impermissibly prompted State and reversed)
Robinson v. 236 Ill. App. 3d 313 (Ill. App. 1992) (suggesting State present evidence to prove elements is not assuming prosecutor role)
Heider v. 231 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2008) (discussing preservation doctrine and when appellate review can address claims raised at trial)
Sprinkle v. 27 Ill. 2d 398 (Ill. 1963) (forfeiture rule may be relaxed when objection concerns trial judge’s conduct)
McLaurin v. 235 Ill. 2d 478 (Ill. 2009) (limit Sprinkle exception to extraordinary circumstances)
Obernauf v. 145 Ill. App. 3d 768 (Ill. App. 1986) (bench trial judge has wide latitude in fact-finding; lower risk of prejudice when judge is finder of fact)
Smith v. 299 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (Ill. App. 1998) (trial judge must not become an advocate for either side)