 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Dea11/30/2004
ate compounded the error by again referring to the penalties in its rebuttal argument. Citing the Second District's opinion in City of Rockford v. Elliott, 308 Ill.App.3d 735, 721 N.E.2d 715 (1999), defendant contends his conviction must be reversed.
Defendant's trial counsel failed to object to the admission of the evidence (1) on direct examination of Officer Roberts, (2) on cross-examination of defendant, (3) during the State's rebuttal argument, and (4) in a posttrial motion. Now, on appeal, defendant claims the evidence was inadmissible. The failure to raise an issue in a written motion for a new trial results in the forfeiture of that issue on appeal. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d 176, 186, 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1129 (1988). To preserve an issue on appeal, a defendant must object to the purported error at trial and include it in his written posttrial motion. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d at 186, 522 N.E.2d at 1130. Defendant acknowledges his trial counsel's procedural error but claims we should review the matter under the plain-error doctrine because the evidence presented at trial was closely balanced. See Enoch, 122 Ill.2d at 199, 522 N.E.2d at 1136 (review is permissible if the error affects a substantial right or if the evidence is closely balanced). We disagree that the evidence here was closely balanced and decline to find plain error occurred.
"We are not triers of fact. Our function is to serve as a court of review." People v. Basler, 193 Ill.2d 545, 549, 740 N.E.2d 1, 3 (2000). Because (1) the trial court did not have the opportunity to consider the issue (Soto v. Gaytan, 313 Ill.App.3d 137, 140, 728 N.E.2d 1126, 1128 (2000)), (2) the admissibility of evidence should not be initially determined by a court of review (see Basler, 193 Ill.2d at 549, 740 N.E.2d at 3), and (3) defendant does not raise an ineffective assistance-of-counsel argument, we decline to excuse defendant's procedural error and find the issue forfeited.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|