People v. Lopes, 125 N.E.3d 1096

State charged James Lopes with grooming and disorderly conduct and simultaneously filed a petition under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act seeking civil commitment.
Lopes repeatedly asked to represent himself; the trial judge conducted extended colloquies, warned him of disadvantages, denied standby counsel, and found he knowingly and intelligently waived counsel.
Two court-appointed experts (Weitl and Carich) evaluated Lopes under the Act; an earlier forensic report by Dr. Cuneo—prepared for a criminal fitness evaluation—opined Lopes was unfit to stand trial.
The trial judge allowed experts to consider Dr. Cuneo’s report but concluded fitness for criminal trial was not required under the Act and made an individualized, ongoing finding that Lopes was competent to proceed pro se in the civil commitment proceedings.
At trial Lopes testified; the jury found him a sexually dangerous person and he was committed for treatment. Lopes appealed, arguing (1) he should not have been permitted to represent himself given Dr. Cuneo’s unfitness opinion, and (2) plain error from admission of a child’s out-of-court statement about an August 2012 Oregon incident.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lopes)	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by allowing Lopes to represent himself in the Act proceeding	Waiver and competency colloquies satisfied; Lopes knowingly and intelligently waived counsel; civil Act proceedings require same protections but do not bar pro se when competent	Dr. Cuneo’s report (finding Lopes unfit to stand trial in criminal proceedings) shows Lopes lacked the mental capacity to represent himself and the court should have appointed counsel	Court affirmed: trial judge made individualized, ongoing competency determination, reasonably exercised discretion; Dr. Cuneo’s report did not mandate denial of self-representation in the civil Act proceeding
Whether admission of the eight-year-old’s statement was plain error (hearsay/excited utterance)	Trial judge required foundation and after foundation the excited-utterance exception was satisfied; admission was not erroneous	Admission of the child’s out-of-court statement that Lopes asked her to pull her pants down was hearsay and, because Lopes did not object further, plain error review should apply	Court held no error: trial judge sustained initial hearsay objection, State later laid adequate foundation for excited-utterance exception; because no trial error occurred, plain-error claim fails

People v. Bingham, 2014 IL 115964 (discussing elements the State must prove under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act)
People v. Lawton, 212 Ill. 2d 285 (procedural and constitutional protections in civil commitment under the Act)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (defendant’s right to self-representation is not absolute where severe mental illness prevents competent pro se defense)
People v. Allen, 401 Ill. App. 3d 840 (2010) (trial court may restrict self-representation when mental-illness-related limitations impede pro se defense; courts should rely on record and individualized inquiry)
People v. Lerma, 2016 IL 118496 (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court procedural rulings)
People v. Griffin, 305 Ill. App. 3d 326 (trial court’s waiver-of-counsel determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (burden and framework for invoking plain-error review)
People v. Nelson, 47 Ill. 2d 570 (recognizing the constitutional right to self-representation)