People v. Sebby
89 N.E.3d 675
Ill.2017Background
- Montana Sebby was arrested after a confrontation with La Salle County deputies who came to serve a custody order for a child; deputies testified he poked an officer, resisted, and a deputy sustained hand/wrist scratches. Sebby was tried and convicted of resisting a peace officer (Class 4 felony) and sentenced to two years.
- Voir dire: the trial court read the Rule 431(b)/Zehr principles (presumption of innocence, State’s burden, no obligation to testify) but asked prospective jurors whether they "had any problems with" or "believed in" those principles rather than whether they "understood and accepted" them as Rule 431(b) requires.
- Sebby did not object at trial to the phrasing of the Rule 431(b) voir dire; on appeal he argued the court erred and, under the plain error doctrine, he was entitled to reversal because the evidence was closely balanced.
- Appellate court affirmed (split panel): it agreed there was a Rule 431(b) violation but found the evidence not closely balanced (and debated whether first-prong plain error requires an additional showing of prejudice).
- Supreme Court of Illinois held the trial court clearly erred under Rule 431(b), found the trial evidence was closely balanced (a credibility contest with plausible competing accounts), and reversed and remanded for a new trial under the first prong of plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sebby) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s voir dire wording violated Rule 431(b) | Trial court’s phrasing was improper but harmless given instructions at close of trial | Phrasing violated Rule 431(b) and was clear error | Court: Clear Rule 431(b) error (asked "any problems"/"believe in" rather than "understand and accept") |
| Whether an unpreserved Rule 431(b) violation can be reviewed under plain error first prong (closely balanced evidence) | The violation is cognizable under first-prong review but reversal requires showing prejudice beyond closeness (State advocated adding a substantiality requirement) | Violation is reviewable under first-prong; closeness of evidence alone establishes prejudice | Court: Rule 431(b) errors are cognizable under first prong and prejudice is shown if the evidence is closely balanced (no extra substantiality showing required) |
| Whether the evidence was closely balanced | State: deputies’ consistent testimony made evidence not closely balanced | Sebby: competing witnesses produced a credible, alternative account; outcome turned on credibility | Court: Evidence was closely balanced (credibility contest with no extrinsic corroboration) and thus prejudicial error occurred |
| Whether giving IPI instruction at close of trial cures a Rule 431(b) violation | State: jury instructions at close (IPI No. 2.03) support presumption jury followed instructions, so no prejudice | Sebby: closing instructions do not cure deficient voir dire; potential for prejudice remains in close cases | Court: Close-of-trial instructions do not automatically cure a Rule 431(b) violation; in a close case the voir dire error may have tipped the scales and warrants reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (Ill. 1984) (establishes voir dire questions on presumption, burden, and not testifying as vital to seating an impartial jury)
- People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173 (Ill. 2009) (held Rule 431(b) violation not structural and considered harmlessness where jury was instructed at close)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Ill. 2010) (reaffirmed that Rule 431(b) violations are not per se structural and considered instruction-at-close implications)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (Ill. 2008) (discusses closely balanced evidence in credibility contests)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (first-prong plain error: error that alone severely threatened to tip scales in closely balanced cases is prejudicial)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2007) (explains two-prong plain error framework and first-prong closely balanced analysis)
- People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938 (Ill. 2013) (recognized Rule 431(b) noncompliance as clear error and its limits under second-prong review)
- People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 (Ill. 2014) (applied commonsense, contextual evaluation of closeness of evidence for Rule 431(b) plain-error review)
- People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 (Ill. 2011) (addresses prejudicial showing in context of preserved/unpreserved error doctrines)
- People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168 (Ill. 2012) (discusses standards for prejudice and review of trial errors)
- People v. Fort, 2017 IL 118966 (Ill. 2017) (reaffirmed Herron framework for plain error review)
- People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2004) (recognizes presumption that juries follow instructions)