People v. Schoonover
158 N.E.3d 253
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Hayze L. Schoonover was tried on four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child based on allegations by a minor family member; the jury convicted on three counts.
- At trial the court announced it would "clear" the courtroom during the minor victim’s testimony under 725 ILCS 5/115-11, except for the media.
- Defense counsel alerted the court that defendant’s family members were present; the court ordered them out without inquiring into who they were or whether they had a "direct interest" under section 115-11.
- The court expressly noted defense counsel’s objection on the record but did not question or identify excluded spectators.
- On appeal the Fourth District held the court violated section 115-11 by excluding spectators without determining their direct interest and concluded that noncompliance amounted to a structural/public-trial error requiring automatic reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Schoonover) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether closing the courtroom during the minor victim’s testimony violated the right to a public trial / section 115-11 | Court complied (media exempted) and no showing that persons with a direct interest were excluded | Court cleared room without determining whether excluded spectators had a direct interest; statutory and public-trial protections violated | Reversed: court failed to make required inquiry under §115-11; noncompliance amounted to a structural public-trial violation requiring reversal and remand |
| Whether defendant’s failure to file a posttrial motion or fully press the objection at trial precludes review (waiver vs. forfeiture/plain error) | Defendant acquiesced by not speaking when court asked who should remain, so claim waived | Silence reflected forfeiture, not waiver; court expressly noted counsel’s objection; plain-error review is available | Forfeiture, not waiver; objection was noted and the claim was reviewed as second-prong plain error (structural) |
| Whether a §115-11 statutory violation automatically implicates constitutional public-trial protections | Compliance with §115-11 avoids constitutional analysis; noncompliance may or may not implicate constitutional right | Noncompliance here implicated the constitutional public-trial right because the court made no inquiry and excluded spectators | Court treated the §115-11 failure as a public-trial structural error (citing Weaver) and presumed prejudice, ordering reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Falaster v. People, 173 Ill. 2d 220 (Ill. 1996) (section 115-11 suffices for limited courtroom closures; media presence preserves public-trial concerns)
- Holveck v. People, 141 Ill. 2d 84 (Ill. 1990) (media presence equated with public attendance; trial judge must consider victim-related factors when limiting spectators)
- Revelo v. People, 286 Ill. App. 3d 258 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (trial court must expressly determine whether excluded family had a direct interest; presumption of prejudice when direct-interest persons are excluded)
- Benson v. People, 251 Ill. App. 3d 144 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (court should ask counsel to identify interested spectators and tailor any exclusion; compliance with §115-11 avoids constitutional infirmity)
- Priola v. People, 203 Ill. App. 3d 401 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (discusses closure findings and record adequacy under closure rules)
- Thompson v. People, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Ill. 2010) (explains structural-error/second-prong plain-error framework)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2017) (public-trial violations are structural; contemporaneous objection on direct appeal typically entitles defendant to automatic reversal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance referenced in context of collateral claims)