People v. Holland, 2023 IL App (4th) 220384

Defendant Andrew Holland was tried bench-style (pro se at trial) on one count of criminal sexual assault for allegedly having intercourse with A.M.G. while she was unable to give knowing consent.
State witnesses (A.M.G., Mia Guerrero, and Emily Chambers) testified that the group drank and traveled to Belvidere; A.M.G. vomited, was unconscious or in-and-out, was carried into defendant’s apartment, and later found having been sexuallly penetrated. Defendant testified A.M.G. consented, told him she was 18, and denied she was unconscious.
The trial court (bench trial) asked follow-up questions of three witnesses and defendant to clarify gaps about who drove, prior contacts among witnesses, interactions between defendant and A.M.G., and the level of intoxication.
The court found the State’s witnesses credible, convicted Holland, and later reappointed counsel; the trial court denied posttrial motions and sentenced Holland to 10 years’ imprisonment.
At sentencing the court relied on a presentence report showing a lengthy criminal history, including a Maryland second-degree rape conviction; the court stated it had “looked up on the internet what rape in the second degree is,” commenting the Maryland offense appeared similar to Illinois criminal sexual assault.
Holland appealed, arguing (1) the trial judge crossed into advocacy by questioning witnesses and (2) the court improperly relied on outside research about his prior out-of-state rape conviction at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s questioning of witnesses at a bench trial constituted judicial advocacy/bias	Court questioning was permissible to clarify testimony; judge acted within discretion and did not prejudge outcome	Judge overstepped, acted as advocate for State, depriving Holland of a fair trial; reversal/new trial required	No abuse of discretion. Questions were open-ended and intended to clarify testimony; in a bench trial the risk of prejudice is reduced. Conviction affirmed
Whether the trial court improperly relied on outside research about defendant’s Maryland rape conviction at sentencing	Conceded that the court’s internet research was error but argued the claim was forfeited and any error harmless	Court’s outside research into the out-of-state statute was improper and required remand for resentencing	Court erred in using information of unclear provenance (internet research) about the Maryland statute, but Holland forfeited contemporaneous objection; error was not plain or outcome-determinative. Sentence affirmed

People v. Sprinkle, 189 N.E.2d 295 (Ill. 1963) (judicial misconduct can justify relaxation of forfeiture rule in extraordinary circumstances)
People v. Williams, 670 N.E.2d 638 (Ill. 1996) (trial judge may question witnesses to clarify testimony but must remain impartial)
People v. Romero, 105 N.E.3d 1048 (Ill. App. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard applied to judge’s questioning; de novo review not appropriate)
People v. Dameron, 751 N.E.2d 1111 (Ill. 2001) (sentencing error where judge relied on private research and social-science material outside the record)
People v. Hillier, 931 N.E.2d 1184 (Ill. 2010) (preservation rule for sentencing claims requires contemporaneous objection and postsentencing motion)
People v. Rivers, 102 N.E.2d 303 (Ill. 1951) (sentencing court’s deliberations are generally limited to the record and admitted exhibits)