People v. Franklin, 970 N.E.2d 1247

Defendant Leon A. Franklin was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced to two consecutive five-year terms.
During jury selection, the court told jurors that beyond a reasonable doubt means what they each believe is beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial evidence included S.R.’s testimony that Franklin had sexual intercourse with her on multiple dates in 2007–2008.
Adrian Brown and Sonya Johnson testified to events surrounding the February 23, 2008 incident; a birth certificate showed Franklin’s age as 35.
In closing, the prosecutor described the facts as uncontradicted and reminded jurors that they determine reasonable doubt; the jury found Franklin guilty.
The court sentenced Franklin after considering his criminal history and concluded consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the reasonable doubt instruction violated due process.	People argues instruction defined doubt.	Franklin argues instruction improperly defined reasonable doubt.	Yes; instruction was defective and structural error requiring reversal.
Whether the prosecutor’s ‘uncontradicted’ statements violated due process.	People contends statements were not intended to emphasize defendant’s failure to testify.	Franklin contends statements compromised fairness.	Not reversible error on this point; not error in closing argument.
Whether pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance were adequately addressed.	People suggests trial court should have addressed claims more thoroughly.	Franklin argues inadequate inquiry into witnesses and counsel performance.	Court remanded for further inquiry on pro se claims (ineffective assistance).
Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion.	People asserts discretion to impose consecutive terms supported by history and offense.	Franklin contends sentencing was excessive.	Answered in the affirmative for conviction reversal on the first issue; sentencing issue not reached on remand.

Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (structural error for deficient reasonable doubt instruction)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994) (defining reasonable doubt possible; totality of instructions matters)
Malmenato v. State, 14 Ill.2d 52 (Ill. 1958) (Illinois rule against defining reasonable doubt)
Failor v. State, 271 Ill. App. 3d 968 (Ill. App. 1995) (no instruction defining reasonable doubt; caution against defining it)
Speight v. People, 153 Ill. 2d 365 (Ill. 1992) (no defining of reasonable doubt; cautionary approach)
Turman v. People, 2011 IL App (1st) 091019 (Ill. App. 2011) (reversible error for collective determination of reasonable doubt; relied upon by majority)
Jenkins v. People, 89 Ill. App. 3d 395 (Ill. App. 1980) (defect in reasonable doubt instruction prejudicial if misinterpreted)
Layhew v. People, 139 Ill. 2d 476 (Ill. 1990) (preservation and due process in instructions)
Green v. State, 225 Ill. 2d 612 (Ill. 2007) (due process and reasonable doubt instruction context)