People v. Johnson, 80 N.E.3d 114

Defendant Calvin Johnson, after a bench trial, was convicted of criminal sexual assault, aggravated domestic battery, aggravated battery, and two counts of unlawful restraint; sentenced to six years' imprisonment for sexual assault and concurrent probation/jail for other counts.
Victim C.J., Johnson's estranged wife, testified he threatened her with a knife and a gun, forced her to drive to a motel, restrained her, and had nonconsensual intercourse; nurse exam showed injuries consistent with sexual trauma.
Defendant admitted meeting C.J. and having sex at a motel but maintained it was consensual and denied displaying weapons or threats; court found C.J. credible and defendant not credible.
Trial court ordered a presentence report that included a sex-offender evaluation; the evaluator labeled defendant a pedophile and reported deception during testing.
Statute 730 ILCS 5/5-3-2(b-5) prohibits sex-offender evaluations when the offender is subject to any mandatory prison sentence; criminal sexual assault is a nonprobationable Class 1 felony.
On appeal defendant argued (1) insufficient evidence and (2) plain error from requiring an unauthorized sex-offender evaluation; majority affirmed convictions and rejected plain-error relief, dissent would remand for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for sexual assault and related offenses	The State: C.J.’s testimony was positive and credible and corroborated by injuries, witnesses, and surrounding facts	Johnson: C.J. gave inconsistent statements and his testimony (consensual sex) was more credible	Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether ordering a sex-offender evaluation was permitted when defendant faced a mandatory prison term	The State: trial court acted within discretion; evaluation useful for sentencing	Johnson: statutory prohibition bars evaluations where any mandatory prison sentence applies	Error to order evaluation — statute plainly prohibits evaluation when offender faces any mandatory prison sentence
Whether the unauthorized evaluation warrants plain-error relief / remand for resentencing	The State: evaluation did not meaningfully affect sentence; court dismissed evaluation’s most damaging conclusions	Johnson: evaluation prejudiced sentencing; the report and prosecutor’s argument poisoned the proceeding	No plain-error relief — majority: defendant failed both prongs (error was clear but did not deny fair sentencing nor prejudice sentence); Dissent: evaluation tainted sentencing and remand required

People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206 (discussing sufficiency review standard)
People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363 (deference to trier of fact on credibility)
People v. Hillier, 392 Ill. App. 3d 66 (trial court discretion re: evaluations discussed; later superseded by statutory amendment)
People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30 (statutory construction principles)
People v. McChriston, 2014 IL 115310 (apply plain statutory language)
DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
People v. Adams, 109 Ill. 2d 102 (minor inconsistencies do not necessarily create reasonable doubt)
People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 (plain-error framework; discussion of second-prong error and fundamental fairness)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (structural error framework)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (structural vs. trial-process error)