People v. Williams, 53 N.E.3d 1019

Background

Williams was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving a single victim, S.H., occurring from 2010 to 2012 when she was 8–9 years old.
The trial was a bench trial after jury waiver; the State sought to introduce hearsay statements under 115-10 concerning S.H.’s statements to Rossman, Moreland, and Miskinis, with only Rossman’s statements ultimately pursued.
S.H. testified in chambers during a partially closed proceeding under 115-11; the court allowed testimony in chambers with the defendant, counsel, the State, and S.H.’s foster mother present.
Defense challenged Morland’s and Miskinis’s testimony as not having been addressed in the 115-10 hearing; the court conducted a simultaneous 115-10 hearing.
The trial court found S.H.’s testimony credible; the court convicted on counts I, II (digital penetration) and IV (sexual abuse) but acquitted on count III (tongue penetration) and sentenced Williams to consecutive terms totaling 14 years.
On appeal, Williams challenged the trial’s closure, ineffective assistance for waiver issues, and shackling without a Boose analysis; the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding plain error in shackling and addressing closure under 115-11

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 115-11 closure of the courtroom during S.H.’s testimony was proper	Williams contends the closure was improper and the record lacks required findings	Williams argues the exclusion under 115-11 was not properly justified	No reversible error; closure authorized under 115-11, but remand for Boose considerations not required; however, plain error not established on closure
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not seeking withdrawal of the jury waiver after the State added testimony	Smith did not object to waiver; the waiver remained valid	Waiver was invalidated by changed circumstances; counsel should have moved for mistrial/withdrawal	Not): no reasonable likelihood the outcome would differ; ineffective assistance claim fails
Whether shackling without a Boose hearing violated due process and whether the remedy should be retrospective Boose or new trial	Shackling without proper analysis compromised due process; plain error	Policy blanket restraint policy; not enough for Boose analysis	Plain error; retrospective Boose hearing not appropriate; case reversed and remanded for a new trial
Whether the State’s use of in-chambers testimony implicates double jeopardy or due process concerns beyond 115-11	Unclear on record whether media/direct-interest exclusions were properly observed	State’s request limited to victim’s testimony; potential broader exclusion but not clearly recorded	No separate reversible error identified; discussion oblique and not grounds for separate reversal
Whether the evidentiary record supports the conviction given lack of medical evidence and reliance on S.H.’s credibility	Only S.H. testified; hearsay corroboration minimal	Credibility contest; defenses undermined by lack of corroborating evidence	Convictions sustained on counts I, II, and IV; credibility found sufficient by the trial court

Key Cases Cited

People v. Falaster, 173 Ill. 2d 220 (1996) (exclusion of witnesses under 115-11 permissible; non-Waller/Press-Enterprise standards apply)
People v. Benson, 251 Ill. App. 3d 144 (1993) (requirements for 115-11 exclusionary closure; direct-interest/media not excluded)
People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (2008) (plain-error framework and balancing test for preserved vs. unpreserved errors)
People v. Boose, 66 Ill. 2d 261 (1977) (boose analysis for shackling and its impact on due process)
People v. Norris, 62 Ill. App. 3d 228 (1978) (timeliness and effect of waiver in light of changing trial conditions)
People v. Smith, 11 Ill. App. 3d 423 (1973) (trial court discretion on withdrawing jury waivers in light of new developments)
People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478 (2010) (de novo review of plain-error issues; Johnson cited for standard)
People v. Harris, 388 Ill. App. 3d 1007 (2009) (remand/Boose-related remedies in plain-error context)
In re Jonathon C.B., 2011 IL 107750 (2011) (trial judge presumed to know and follow the law)