2019 IL App (5th) 150106
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 1990 Schneider's two properties were foreclosed; Alton Banking & Trust purchased them at judicial sale and deeds were recorded.
- Schneider recorded a lien in 1994 asserting the bank owed him $400,000 because the foreclosures were wrongful; criminal charges relating to that lien were later dropped.
- In May 2013 Schneider attempted to record an amended lien against U.S. Bank (successor to Alton Banking & Trust) repeating the $400,000 fraud claim; recorder staff found the filing suspicious and referred it to the State’s Attorney.
- Schneider was charged with attempt (unlawful clouding of title) under 720 ILCS 5/32‑13(a) for recording a lien premised on a legal theory not recognized by Illinois or federal courts.
- At trial the State introduced foreclosure judgments, sale reports, deeds, the 1994 lien, and the 2013 attempted lien; recorder testimony described why the 2013 filing appeared invalid.
- The jury convicted Schneider; the court sentenced him to 12 months’ probation. Schneider appealed, arguing (1) the State failed to prove the lien’s theory was not recognized, (2) insufficient evidence he knew the theory was invalid, and (3) voir dire violated Rule 431(b)/Zehr.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory scope: which jurisdictions’ law must deem the theory invalid | Statute applies where theory is not recognized by Illinois or U.S. courts; no need to show invalidity in other states | Statute required proof the theory was invalid in all 50 states | Held: statute applies if theory is not recognized under Illinois or federal law; no nationwide proof required |
| Sufficiency to show theory invalid | Validity of a legal theory is a question of law for the court, not for the jury; State need not present expert testimony to jury | Lay witness testimony was insufficient; State failed to prove theory invalid under Illinois law | Held: court resolves legal validity; State satisfied requirements—no jury proof required on legal validity |
| Knowledge element (did Schneider know theory was not recognized) | Circumstantial evidence (prior court appearances, unsuccessful efforts to overturn foreclosures, admissions about effect of lien) supports that he knew courts rejected his theory | Schneider believed lien was valid; demeanor and some testimony suggested belief he acted lawfully | Held: evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude Schneider knew the theory was not recognized |
| Rule 431(b)/Zehr voir dire error; plain error review | State: defendant forfeited contemporaneous objection; plain‑error review requires closely balanced evidence, which is not present | Schneider: court failed to fully explain Zehr principles and ask individual acceptance; error warrants reversal | Held: noncompliance occurred but Schneider forfeited review; evidence was not closely balanced, so plain error relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Zehr v. People, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984) (defines jury instruction principles now codified in Rule 431(b))
- Thompson v. People, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (explains Rule 431(b) and requirement to ask jurors to both understand and accept Zehr principles)
- Sebby v. People, 2017 IL 119445 (explains that Rule 431(b) noncompliance is reviewed under the closely‑balanced prong of plain error)
- Piatkowski v. People, 225 Ill.2d 551 (articulates the plain error framework and standards for review)
- Wheeler v. People, 226 Ill.2d 92 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Connolly v. People, 322 Ill. App.3d 905 (distinguishes legal questions for the court from factual questions for the jury)
- Pullen v. People, 192 Ill.2d 36 (statutory construction; avoid interpretations producing absurd results)
- Belknap v. People, 2014 IL 117094 (discusses forfeiture of Rule 431(b) objections if not raised at trial)