People v. Olla, 118 N.E.3d 627

Defendant Baraka Olla was tried for multiple counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse based on allegations by his stepdaughter, A.F., describing oral sex, digital/ manual contact, and "humping."
A.F., then 13 at trial, testified inconsistently about details but described multiple incidents; a recorded interview with a child investigator (admitted under 725 ILCS 5/115-10) largely corroborated her allegations.
Mother (Tawanda) and brother (T.F.) testified to statements and observations that partly corroborated A.F.; defendant denied all allegations and testified he was cooperative with investigators.
During voir dire the court asked jurors whether they "had any problem or take issue with" the Rule 431(b) (Zehr) principles (presumption of innocence, State's burden, defendant need not testify, no adverse inference), but did not ask whether jurors understood those principles.
In closing, the State commented that there was no evidence of a motive for A.F. to lie and stated it "welcomed" the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden; defense did not object to some comments but objected to the rebuttal remark about welcoming the burden.
Jury convicted on most counts; defendant appealed arguing (1) Rule 431(b) plain error because the court failed to ask if jurors understood the principles and the evidence was closely balanced, and (2) improper burden-shifting by the prosecutor in closing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s voir dire satisfied Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) (did court ask jurors they understand the Zehr principles)	State concedes court asked the questions but framed them as whether jurors "had any problem or take issue with" the principles; contends no reversible error because evidence not closely balanced and no biased jury shown	Olla argues the court failed to ask if jurors understood the principles (only asked if they "took issue"), forfeited below but seeks plain-error relief because the evidence was closely balanced	Court held the Rule 431(b) inquiry was deficient (error), but not plain error: evidence was not closely balanced given corroboration (115-10 recording, mother/brother testimony, defendant's own admissions of presence/behavior) so no reversal
Whether the prosecutor impermissibly shifted/lessened the State’s burden in closing argument	State argues comments (lack of motive to lie; "we welcome" the burden) were fair response to defense attacks on victim credibility and did not lessen the burden; jury instructions cured any potential prejudice	Olla argues remarks suggested burden was not a meaningful constraint and shifted burden to defense; claims plain error or misconduct	Court held comments permissible in context: prosecutor may respond to defense attacks on credibility and may state confidence in meeting the burden; no reversible error and jury was properly instructed

Zehr v. People, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (recognizing juror-questioning principles embodied in Rule 431)
Enoch v. People, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (preservation requirements for appellate review)
Walker v. People, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (plain-error framework and first step: whether error occurred)
Herron v. People, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (burden of persuasion remains with defendant on plain-error review)
Hopp v. People, 209 Ill. 2d 1 (plain-error doctrine discussion)
Thompson v. People, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Rule 431(b) requires jurors understand and accept Zehr principles)
Naylor v. People, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (cases turning on credibility contests can be closely balanced)
Bowen v. People, 183 Ill. 2d 103 (admissibility and corroborative value of recorded child statements under section 115-10)
Bryant v. People, 94 Ill. 2d 514 (prosecutor’s comment that the burden is met routinely is permissible)