People v. Sebby
2017 IL 119445
Ill.2018Background
- On Oct. 27, 2011 La Salle County deputies went to the Sebby family farm to serve a temporary custody order for a child; a confrontation with Montana Sebby resulted in his arrest for resisting a peace officer (proximate-cause felony because an officer was injured).
- Deputies testified Sebby poked an officer, pulled away when wrist was grabbed, thrash ed, was taken to the ground, and officer Mohr sustained scrapes; defense witnesses (family/friend) testified Sebby did not strike anyone and deputies wrestled him to the ground.
- At voir dire the trial court recited the Zehr/Rule 431(b) principles but repeatedly asked jurors whether they “had any problems” with or “believe[d] in” those principles rather than whether they “understood and accept” them — a recognized Rule 431(b) violation.
- Sebby did not object at trial; he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment; the appellate court affirmed his conviction over a divided panel.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Rule 431(b) voir dire error could be corrected under the plain-error doctrine given the closeness of the evidence.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the Rule 431(b) violation was clear error and the trial evidence was closely balanced so the error was prejudicial 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) | Questions asking jurors if they had “problems” or “believe in” principles was error but harmless if jury instructions cured it | The wording violated Rule 431(b) and, given the close evidentiary balance, warrants reversal under plain error | Court: The voir dire wording was a clear Rule 431(b) violation (error) |
| Whether an unpreserved Rule 431(b) violation is reviewable under plain-error first prong (closely balanced evidence) | Jury instructions at close (IPI No. 2.03) can cure voir dire error; if so, no plain error even if evidence close | Error is cognizable under first prong; if evidence is closely balanced, reversal required because error may have tipped scales | Court: Rule 431(b) error is cognizable under first-prong plain error and may warrant reversal if evidence is closely balanced |
| Whether the evidence was closely balanced such that the Rule 431(b) error was prejudicial | Evidence favored the State (consistent deputy testimony, corroboration); not closely balanced | Evidence presented credible, conflicting but equally plausible accounts — a credibility contest like Naylor supports closely balanced finding | Court: Evidence was closely balanced (credibility contest) — defendant entitled to relief under first-prong plain error |
| Whether the close-case prejudice inquiry requires any additional showing that the error itself was substantial or actually affected the verdict | The State urged an added prejudice/substantiality requirement (error must be shown to likely have affected outcome) | No additional showing required beyond a finding that evidence was closely balanced | Court: No extra substantiality hurdle — under Herron/Piatkowski, close evidence itself makes the clear error prejudicial; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984) (establishing voir dire questions to ensure juror acceptance of basic criminal-law guarantees)
- People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173 (2009) (held Rule 431(b) violation not structural when jury later properly instructed; courts may consider harmless-error analysis)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (reaffirmed Glasper that Rule 431(b) violation is not automatically reversible and requires plain-error review)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (2005) (plain-error framework: first prong — clear or obvious error + closely balanced evidence is prejudicial)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (2007) (applied Herron’s two-prong plain-error rule)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill.2d 584 (2008) (evidence is closely balanced when outcome rests on credibility contest)
- People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 (2014) (applied closeness analysis to Rule 431(b) errors; evidentiary balance controls first-prong relief)
- People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 (2011) (discussed prejudice concept in first-prong analysis)
- People v. Fort, 2017 IL 118966 (2017) (reaffirmed Herron’s plain-error framework)