People v. Donlow

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated battery with a firearm. Court engaged in a specific question and response process as required by Rule 431(b) when it inquired into one juror's understanding and acceptance fo the Zehr principles. No error in that juror responding "I understand" to one of the principles and court failed to clarify if he also accepted the principle. Court complied with Rule 431(b). Court did not err in omitting a section of IPI Criminal No. 3.11 jury instruction as to prior inconsistent statements. However, court erred in giving the instruction at all, as the only inconsistent statements admitted came in as substantive evidence.Court expressly stated to Defendant that it was not punishing him for exercising his right to trial and continuing to proclaim innocence. Court did not use Defendant's assertion of innocence as a factor in aggravation. (STEIGMANN and TURNER, concurring.)