NOTICE This Order was filed under 2023 IL App (4th) 220913-U FILED July 20, 2023 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-22-0913 Carla Bender not precedent except in the th 4 District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Rock Island County PATRICK NOYA, ) No. 19CF987 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Norma Kauzlarich, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment. Justice Doherty specially concurred. ORDER ¶1 Held: (1) After replacing a juror during deliberations, the circuit court failed to instruct the reconstituted jury to begin the deliberations anew, thereby committing plain error in this case in which the evidence was closely balanced. (2) Because the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions, there is no double-jeopardy impediment to a new trial. ¶2 In the circuit court of Rock Island County, a jury found defendant, Patrick Noya, guilty of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(f) (West 2018)), one count of unlawful restraint (id. § 10-3(a)), and one count of distributing harmful material to a minor (id. § 11-21(g)). The court sentenced him to probation for 36 months and 90 days in jail. Defendant appeals on two grounds. ¶3 First, he claims that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (a) failing to object to evidence of uncharged bad acts and (b) acquiescing to a jury instruction that such evidence could be considered on the issue of intent. ¶4 Second, during deliberations, the circuit court replaced a juror without first following what defendant regards as essential procedural safeguards. The remaining jurors were never asked if they had been exposed to outside influence or if they had already formed opinions. Also, the court never instructed the reconstituted jury to begin the deliberations anew. Defendant acknowledges that because he never raised these contentions of error below, they are unpreserved. Nevertheless, he invokes the doctrine of plain error. Alternatively, he claims that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to make these inquiries of the remaining jurors. ¶5 We do not reach the claims of ineffective assistance. Instead, in this case in which the evidence was closely balanced, we find plain error in the circuit court’s failure to instruct the reconstituted jury to begin the deliberations anew. Therefore, we reverse the judgment, and we remand this case for a new trial. ¶6 I. BACKGROUND ¶7 The complainant was U.A., a 17-year-old girl. In the jury trial, she testified substantially as follows. Defendant was one of her teachers in high school, and he rubbed her back almost every day during class. On November 5, 2018, she came to defendant’s classroom and asked defendant to help her with some homework. No one else was present. He touched her and requested permission to kiss her. She said no. He said he would help her if …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals