People v. Moon, 168 N.E.3d 195

Omega Moon was convicted by a jury in 2016 of domestic battery for allegedly whipping her ward, Shontrell, with a belt; she was sentenced to one year of probation.
Prosecution evidence included Shontrell’s in-court testimony, contemporaneous statements to a police officer and a Department of Children and Family Services investigator, photographs of buckle-shaped injuries, and testimony that Moon admitted whipping him.
After jury selection the court had the jurors swear a voir dire oath (to answer qualification questions truthfully) rather than a full trial oath to try the issues; defense did not object at trial and raised the error in a posttrial motion.
The trial court admitted the child’s outcry statements under 725 ILCS 5/115-10 but declined to give IPI Criminal No. 11.66; the jury received the general witness-credibility instruction IPI Criminal No. 1.02.
Defendant also claims the court failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) by not asking prospective jurors whether they both understood and accepted the principle that a defendant’s decision not to testify cannot be held against them.
The trial court denied the posttrial motion (finding no prejudice), and the appellate court affirmed: the wrong oath was clear error but not plain error; Rule 431(b) omission was clear but not plain error because evidence was not closely balanced; omission of IPI 11.66 was not plain error given IPI 1.02 and the weight of the evidence.

Issue	People’s Argument	Moon’s Argument	Held
Whether conviction is void because jurors were given voir dire oath rather than trial oath	The record shows an oath was administered and there is a presumption the proper oath was used; any defect was waived by failure to object	Jury wasn’t given the trial oath to try the issues; conviction is null and requires new trial	Wrong oath was clear error but not plain error; no reversal because evidence not closely balanced and voir dire/instructions addressed oath’s purposes
Whether court violated Rule 431(b) by failing to ask jurors they both understood and accepted that a defendant’s silence cannot be held against them	No plain error because defendant forfeited and evidence is not closely balanced	Failure to ask the required "understand" and "accept" questions violated Rule 431(b)	Failure to ask was clear error, but not reversible under plain-error review because evidence was not closely balanced
Whether court erred by not giving IPI Criminal No. 11.66 when outcry statements admitted under section 115-10	Absence of IPI 11.66 was forfeited; any omission is not reversible because jury got IPI 1.02 and evidence not closely balanced	Statutory instruction (IPI 11.66) required when 115-10 statements admitted; omission merits reversal	Omission is clear error but not plain error here; IPI 1.02 sufficiently covered credibility issues and evidence was not closely balanced

Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U.S. 833 (2014) (jeopardy attaches when jury is sworn)
Cornelius v. Boucher, 1 Ill. 32 (1820) (irregularity in swearing jury may be waived if not timely objected to)
People v. Abadia, 328 Ill. App. 3d 669 (2001) (delay or defect in juror oath may be forfeited where court’s instructions preserved integrity)
People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (2010) (omission of IPI 11.66 is error but similar credibility instruction can obviate second-prong plain error)
People v. Cain, 869 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 2015) (defective juror oath can be forfeited where voir dire and instructions address oath’s purposes)
Adams v. State, 690 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. 2010) (survey of jurisdictions finding complete trial by unsworn jury a nullity)
Harris v. State, 956 A.2d 204 (Md. 2008) (unsworn jury held structural error, not subject to harmless-error analysis)