' [Citation]." People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 142 (1993). Stokes no more heard K.O.'s remarks personally than K.O. heard Stokes' questions personally.
[Citation]." People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 142 (1993). Stokes no more heard K.O.'s remarks personally than K.O. heard Stokes' questions personally.
The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review unpreserved error in two situations: "if either [ (1) ] the evidence was closely balanced or [ (2) ] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial." People v. Hindson , 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 473-74, 234 Ill.Dec. 856, 703 N.E.2d 956, 962-63 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt , 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139, 184 Ill.Dec. 766, 613 N.E.2d 1358, 1365 (1993) ); People v. Thompson , 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403, 413 (2010) (citing People v. Piatkowski , 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565, 312 Ill.Dec. 338, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007) ). The defendant bears the burden of persuasion in plain error review.
The adequacy of an expert witness's qualifications is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court that will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 145 (1993). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Young to testify as an expert witness regarding the syndrome.
The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review an unpreserved error "if either [(1)] the evidence was closely balanced or [(2)] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial." People v. Hindson, 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 473-74 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139 (1993)); People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010) (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)). In plain error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion.
The plain error rule may be used if the evidence was closely balanced or the error was so great that the defendant did not receive a fair trial. People v. Hindson, 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 474-74, 703 N.E.2d 956, 962-63 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139, 613 N.E.2d 1358, 1365 (1993)); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007)). In plain error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion.
The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review an unpreserved error "if either [1] the evidence was closely balanced or [2] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial." People v. Hindson, 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 473-74, 703 N.E.2d 956, 962-63 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139, 613 N.E.2d 1358, 1365 (1993)); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007)). In plain error review, the defendant bears the burden of
People v. Johnson, 2014 IL App (2d) 121004, ¶ 51. For this reason as well, the admission of Alshanski's testimony was harmless error.¶ 51 In so ruling, we note that the defendant relies on People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132 (1993), in arguing that Alshanski's testimony was improperly admitted. In Petitt, as a prelude to the sex offense at issue there, the defendant had the victim scratch his back.
See People v. Soler, 228 Ill. App. 3d 183, 200 (1992) ("Where minor inconsistencies or discrepancies exist in a complainant's testimony but do not detract from the reasonableness of her story as a whole,the complainant's testimony may be found to be adequate to support a conviction for sexual abuse."); see also People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 138-39 (1993) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of aggravated criminal sexual abuse where there were discrepancies in the minor victim's trial testimony and prior statements regarding when and where the abuse occurred and the victim had a motive to fabricate).¶ 34 Thus, the evidence was sufficient to convict Z.J.C. of aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and we will not reverse the trial court's finding of delinquency.
The adequacy of an expert witness's qualifications is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court that will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Atherton, 406 Ill. App. 3d 598, 614 (2010) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 145 (1993)).¶ 62 In the present case, Riehm has knowledge and experience of child sexual abuse beyond that of the average citizen; for example, 26 years of experience working with traumatized children who have been the alleged victims of sexual abuse.