People v. Gonzalez
2011 IL App (2d) 100380
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Ernesto Gonzalez was convicted of aggravated assault of a peace officer and resisting a peace officer.
- Pretrial, the court indicated it would largely conduct voir dire itself and would not permit full defense direct questioning.
- Defense requested to ask certain voir dire questions; court limited interaction and stated a new regime would govern questioning.
- Defense objected when the court prevented direct questions to jurors, but the court pressed on with its questioning.
- The court denied a motion to strike a juror; defense used peremptory strikes, and there were no objections to voir dire as conducted.
- During trial, testimony from officers and Walls conflicted on key facts, and the jury found Gonzalez guilty on both charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated Rule 431(a) by denying direct voir dire questioning | People argues deference to Rule 431(a) and forfeiture apply; none of the factors were considered | Gonzalez asserts court failed to consider Rule 431(a) factors before denying direct questioning | Yes; trial court erred under Rule 431(a) and plain error occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garstecki, 234 Ill. 2d 430 (Ill. 2009) (Rule 431(a) requires factor-based direct inquiry and cannot dispense with attorney questioning)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Ill. 2010) (plain-error framework governs forfeited Rule 431(a) claims)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (plain-error standard when error in a close case)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (Ill. 2008) (evidence credibility and closeness can support plain-error finding)