In re Jonathan C.B.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2008 » In re Jonathan C.B.

In re Jonathan C.B.

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-06-1077 Rel

Case Date: 11/18/2008

Preview:Filed 11/18/08

NO. 4-06-1077 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

In re: JONATHAN C.B., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JONATHAN C.B., Respondent-Appellant.

) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Champaign County ) No. 06JD127 ) ) Honorable ) Heidi Ladd, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court: The trial court adjudicated respondent, Jonathan C.B., a delinquent minor, finding him guilty of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1) (West 2004)) and attempt (robbery) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 18-1 (West 2004)), and ordered him to be committed to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate term to automatically terminate upon the first of the passage of 15 years or respondent attaining the age of 21. Respondent appeals, arguing (1) the State failed to prove him guilty of criminal sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) his due-process rights were violated when he was shackled during his bench trial; and (3) section 5-101(3) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-101(3) (West 2004)), as applied to juveniles charged with sex offenses, is unconstitutional because it denies juveniles the right to a jury trial. affirm. On August 24, 2006, the State filed a supplemental petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging respondent was a We

delinquent minor and charging him with criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1) (West 2004)) and attempt (robbery) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 18-1 (West 2004)). dent's bench trial began. On August 30, 2006, respon-

At respondent's trial, the State

presented evidence that during the late evening on July 10, 2006, and the early morning on July 11, 2006, respondent, who was 16 years old, and another minor, G.W., sexually assaulted and attempted to rob 45-year-old C.H. Respondent's theory of the

case was that he and G.W. paid C.H. $40 for sex and then attempted to retrieve their money. C.H. testified that at approximately 11:30 p.m. on July 10, 2006, she left her home to make a phone call at her friend Donnie Stewart's house. As she walked to Stewart's house, she C.H.

was approached by a tall boy and a shorter, younger boy. identified respondent as the taller boy.

She stated the shorter She told him he

boy commented to her "I have three for one."

should be home in bed and respondent told C.H. that the shorter boy was his brother and she was not to speak to him that way. C.H. testified the boys made her uncomfortable and she continued on her way. C.H. arrived at Stewart's house and used his phone. She remained there approximately 10 minutes and then left to return home. As she was walking home, she heard footsteps behind The second boy was not

her and saw respondent and a second boy.

the same boy from the earlier encounter and C.H. described him as being short and stout. C.H. testified the boys called to her and - 2 -

respondent asked her if she wanted a drink.

She stated he raised

the garage door on a nearby duplex using a button and asked her to come toward the garage. garage door down. back of the house. C.H. declined and respondent let the

He then suggested they go have a drink at the C.H. testified the shorter boy grabbed her She was pushed to her knees

arm and pulled her behind the house.

and felt respondent, who was behind her, put his penis in her vagina. The shorter boy placed his penis in C.H.'s mouth. C.H.

stated she fought back to no avail and was screaming. attack, her bra and shirt were torn.

During the

C.H. testified she saw people across the street but no one helped her. A boy walked by and asked what was happening.

C.H. stated the shorter boy became startled and let go of her. She was able to get away but slipped and fell. friend Keisha driving by and asked her for help. C.H. then saw her Keisha drove an According

orange or gold vehicle that was "maybe like a truck."

to C.H., respondent told Keisha not to let C.H. in Keisha's vehicle because the police were coming and Keisha did not let her in. Respondent presented testimony from Takesha Williams, who

stated she drove an orange Pontiac Aztec, which she described as a "funny-made truck." She was acquainted with C.H. but denied

that C.H. approached her and asked for a ride on the date of the alleged offenses. with her children. C.H. testified that, after being denied entry into Keisha's vehicle, she continued on and was able to get to a tree - 3 Instead, Williams asserted she was at her home

near the back of her house.

At that point, respondent hit her on C.H. stated she

the back of her head and knocked her down.

always carried a pocketknife with her when she was out after dark and respondent yelled at her to "drop the knife." also put his foot on her left arm and held it down. boy started stomping on C.H.'s head. C.H. testified she saw a light and heard a male voice say "let her go." The male voice belonged to a police officer. She Respondent The other

C.H. testified an ambulance also arrived at the scene. received medical care for injuries to her arm. ported that her stomach hurt.

C.H. also re-

She refused to go to the hospital.

Further, C.H. acknowledged that she did not tell police she had been sexually assaulted but stated she did report the sexual assault to paramedics. Sarah Ramey, a paramedic employed by Arrow Carle Ambulance, testified that, in the early morning hours of July 11, 2006, she and her partner were dispatched to C.H.'s location. Ramey observed C.H., whom she described as hysterical, crying, and having trouble breathing. C.H. appeared to be intimidated by C.H. stated

men on the scene and immediately reached for Ramey.

she wanted to go home but agreed to go into the ambulance so Ramey could check her injuries. As Ramey helped C.H. to the Ramey

ambulance, C.H. whispered to Ramey that C.H. "was raped."

testified she observed abrasions on both of C.H.'s elbows and a shoe print on her left arm. abdomen. C.H. also had some tenderness in her

Ramey stated she pleaded with C.H. to go to the hospi- 4 -

tal but C.H. refused. Destiny Nesbitt testified she was respondent's cousin and was with him on the evening of July 10, 2006. At about 10:45

p.m., respondent asked for $40 because there were some girls in the neighborhood and he needed money. Nesbitt gave respondent

the money and then went to sleep at approximately 11 p.m. Shortly after 1 a.m., Nesbitt's boyfriend spoke with respondent on the phone. During that conversation, respondent stated he had

"hit a hype," which she understood to mean he hit a drug addict. Ultimately, Nesbitt learned the police were looking for respondent. Nesbitt testified she lived in a duplex at 2701A Campbell Drive. A woman named Pooker lived on the other side of The

the duplex, 2701B, with her five children, including G.W.. duplex had a garage, which Nesbitt also rented.

She testified a

key was required to get inside the garage and that it always stayed locked. On the night of the incident, Nesbitt learned

respondent was inside Pooker's residence and attempted to persuade him to leave the residence and talk with police. Sheriff's deputy Andrew Good testified that, on July 10, 2006, he was working as a patrol officer on the midnight shift. Around 1:15 a.m. he heard screaming and observed two The males were screaming at the

males standing over a female.

female and appeared to be striking her with their fists or hands. Good heard the males saying "Give me the money," and "Where is the bread." The female asked the males to stop hitting her and - 5 -

stated she did not have any money. males to "put the knife down."

Good also heard her tell the

Good testified he observed the female stand up and run in his direction with the two males chasing her. He drew his

weapon, pointed his flashlight in their direction, identified himself as a sheriff's deputy, and ordered them to stop. males turned and ran in the opposite direction. The two

Good observed

that the female was wearing a tank top that was torn, exposing her bra strap. Her bra was also torn and her pants were soiled Good described her as hysterical and stated At first, the female Good saw

in the crotch area.

it was hard to get information from her.

stated she had been raped and the two males had a gun.

that her elbows and arms were scratched and her elbows were bleeding. Ultimately, the female was able to tell police where her attackers came from. tree in the front yard. She described a duplex with a large Police went to a residence at 2701 They

Campbell Drive but were unable to immediately make entry. tried contacting people inside the residence and eventually

someone opened the door and they were able to take custody of two suspects, G.W. and respondent. conducted. A show-up identification was

Good heard respondent state that he and G.W. "just

went up to help her" but they "saw the police and *** ran." Eventually, G.W. and respondent were arrested and transported to a detention center. Good described G.W. as being "five five" and

weighing 160 pounds and respondent as being "five two" and - 6 -

weighing 115 pounds. Sheriff's deputy Norman Meeker testified that on July 10, 2006, he was working the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift and was dispatched to the area of the incident in question to assist with a fight. Later, the nature of the dispatch changed and he was He was provided with

informed that it was an armed robbery.

descriptions of the suspects and the direction they were traveling. He began walking on Campbell Drive alongside houses. At

2701A Campbell, he heard someone talking on the phone, saying "they better have their [$40]." Meeker continued to watch the duplex and observed the front door on one side open and close approximately five times. Eventually, he made contact with Nesbitt from 2701A. She stated

she was getting her cousin, whom she identified as respondent. Nesbitt stated she was supposed to be watching respondent and at about 1:15 a.m. she received a phone call from him and he stated "he just hit a hype." side of the duplex. She stated respondent was on the other Nesbitt acknowledged she loaned respondent

$40 earlier in the evening and he stated he no longer had it but would get it back for her. Meeker and other officers attempted to make contact with the people inside 2701B Campbell Drive by knocking and pounding on the door and announced that they were the sheriff's office. No one answered the knocking or pounding. Nesbitt was

able to speak with somebody inside the residence by phone and Meeker asked her have them open the door. - 7 Eventually, around

2:15 a.m., the door was opened. residence, G.W. and respondent.

Two suspects were found in the A show-up identification was

conducted and Meeker heard respondent say something about how they "were just walking with [C.H.]." respondent and they were arrested. Meeker testified he later interviewed respondent. Respondent stated C.H. approached him earlier in the evening, wanting to sell a television. any money. He replied that he did not have C.H. identified G.W. and

They then discussed the possibility of C.H. doing Respondent stated he had a friend and Respondent called G.W. and obtained

something else for money. C.H. stated that was okay. $40 from his cousin.

Respondent stated both he and G.W. had Specifi-

sexual relations with C.H. behind 2701 Campbell Drive.

cally, he stated he had oral sex with C.H. and G.W. had sexual intercourse with her. Respondent reported that, during the acts,

C.H. fell over, cut herself, and her shirt and possibly her bra became torn. C.H. then became upset and asked respondent and Respon-

G.W. to walk her home so her husband would not be mad.

dent stated that, as they were walking, C.H. "freaked out" and began yelling and screaming. box cutter. At one point, she also pulled out a

The police then arrived on the scene, and he and

G.W. ran away. Meeker testified respondent later changed his story. First, he asserted he never actually engaged in any sexual activity with C.H. because she fell over. Second, respondent

informed Meeker that he and G.W. began following C.H. as she left - 8 -

because they wanted to get their $40 back.

He stated G.W. hit At

C.H. and knocked her down in an attempt to get the money. that time, the police arrived. C.H.

Respondent asserted he never hit

According to Meeker, respondent also reported that, while

he and G.W. were inside the residence at 2701B Campbell, they discussed what they were going to tell police about what happened. Curtis Apperson testified he was an investigator for the sheriff's department and he and sheriff's deputy William Davis interviewed C.H. Initially, the offense they were investiHowever, during the interview, C.H.

gating was an armed robbery.

reported she had been raped and the nature of the investigation changed. Apperson stated C.H. was emotional when she disclosed He and Davis collected the clothing she had

the sexual assault.

been wearing during the offenses and took her to the hospital to obtain a rape kit. Apperson asked C.H. why she did not report She explained that she had

the sexual assault earlier to police.

been the victim of a rape before but police did not believe her. She felt her claims would not be investigated. C.H. did report

to Apperson and Davis that she told a female paramedic or firefighter that she was raped. Apperson and Davis transported C.H. to the hospital, where they continued to interview her. emotions were up and down. Apperson stated C.H.'s

At times, she was calm, but at other

times she became very emotional and was crying and lowering her head. - 9 -

Apperson testified C.H. reported $50 was taken from her during the incident. He also stated she reported that, prior to

being attacked, she had been to two places, Antoine's house and Donnie's house. However, Apperson stated it was difficult to

talk to C.H. because of her emotions so he was "not exactly clear" where C.H. stated she had been prior to when the offenses allegedly occurred. Davis testified C.H. reported that she was

at Antoine's house before the incident in question and that she had a birthday drink. Stewart to Davis. She did not mention anyone named Donnie

Also, he stated C.H. told him she was ini-

tially approached by three individuals rather than two. Mary Sexton testified she was a registered nurse and performed a sexual assault kit on C.H. C.H. reported to Sexton

that she had been walking home from a friend's house and the friend had not been home. She was raped by two young males and

stated she had seen a small gun. Respondent testified he was 16 years old. On July 10

and 11, 2006, he was staying at the home of his cousin, Destiny Nesbitt. G.W. lived next door to Nesbitt. Between midnight and

12:30 a.m. on July 11, 2006, C.H. approached respondent and G.W.'s little brother and asked them if they wanted to buy a television. Respondent replied that he did not. C.H. then asked Respondent

respondent if he had any money or if he sold drugs. replied negatively to both questions. she could do anything for some money.

C.H. asked respondent if Respondent understood that He testified he

C.H. was referring to some type sexual activity. - 10 -

called G.W. and C.H. offered to have sex with both of them for $20 each. Respondent testified he borrowed $40 from Nesbitt. gave G.W. $20 and G.W. and C.H. went behind the duplex and engaged in sexual intercourse. After 5 or 10 minutes, G.W. came He

out from behind the house and handed respondent a condom. Respondent then went behind the house and paid C.H. $20. C.H.

performed oral sex on respondent and then the two engaged in vaginal sexual intercourse. Respondent testified that as he

engaged in vaginal intercourse with C.H., he grabbed her shoulders and her bra strap tore. elbow. She also slipped and scraped her She asked

After slipping, C.H. got up and was crying.

respondent to walk her home because her boyfriend was going to beat her. Respondent agreed to walk her home and stated he did

not get a chance to finish having sex with C.H. Respondent testified that, as he and G.W. were walking C.H. home, they decided to get their money back from her. He

stated, at that time, C.H. drew a knife and he told her to put it down. After C.H. put the knife away, G.W. shoved her and knocked Respondent stepped on C.H.'s arm so that she would not G.W. searched C.H. but did not find any money. Police appeared on the scene, Respondent and

her down.

go for her knife.

He asked her where her money was.

flashed lights on them, and told them to stop. G.W. ran to G.W.'s house and went inside. G.W.'s house 15 to 20 minutes later.

Police arrived at

Approximately five minutes

later, G.W. opened the door and they were taken into custody. - 11 -

After hearing all the evidence and the parties' arguments, the trial court found respondent guilty of both charged offenses and adjudicated him delinquent. On November 13, 2006,

the court ordered him to be committed to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate term to automatically terminate in 15 years or upon respondent attaining the age of 21, whichever came first. This appeal followed. On appeal, respondent first argues the State failed to prove him guilty of criminal sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. He maintains C.H. was not a credible witness and the

trial court's judgment as to her credibility was not reasonable in light of the record. "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis in original.) People v. Jordan, 218 Ill. A reviewing court's

2d 255, 269, 843 N.E.2d 870, 879 (2006).

function is not to retry the defendant and it should not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. People v.

Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 242, 860 N.E.2d 178, 217 (2006). "The weight to be given the witnesses' testimony, the credibility of the witnesses, resolution of inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony are the responsibility of the trier of fact." - 12 Suther-

land, 223 Ill. 2d at 242, 860 N.E.2d at 217.

A conviction must

be reversed "where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of [the] defendant's guilt." People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 542, 708

N.E.2d 365, 370 (1999). A person commits criminal sexual assault if he or she performs an act of sexual penetration by the use of force or threat of force. 720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1) (West 2004).

Here, C.H. testified she was grabbed and taken behind a duplex where G.W. and respondent forced her to engage in sexual acts. She stated she was screaming and fought back but was C.H. specifically testified respondent inserted his The record reflects C.H. reported being

overpowered.

penis into her vagina.

"raped" immediately to paramedic Sarah Ramey and sheriff's deputy Andrew Good. She was described by Ramey and police as being very Also, the trial

emotional to the point of being hysterical.

court commented that C.H. became similarly emotional when providing testimony on the subject of the sexual assault. Respondent points out C.H. provided inconsistent statements about where she went prior to the incident in question, how many boys she saw during an initial encounter, the opening and closing of the duplex's garage door, an encounter with her friend "Keisha" during the attack, and whether the boys had a gun. Here, the trial court noted the case came down to

issues of credibility and that inconsistencies were present in both C.H.'s testimony and respondent's testimony. - 13 The court's

oral ruling in the case shows it thoroughly considered all of the evidence presented, including the inconsistencies in C.H.'s testimony. dent. In the end, it found C.H. more credible than respon-

That finding is not so unreasonable, improbable, or

unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of respondent's guilt. Although C.H.'s testimony contained inconsistencies, they did not concern the essential facts of the sexual assault or attempted robbery. Moreover, respondent's own statements were

inconsistent and evolved over time, reflecting negatively on his own credibility. He made several different statements, regarding After initially being

the sexual acts he engaged in with C.H.

taken into custody, police heard respondent state he was "just walking with [C.H.]" and that he was trying to help her. In his

first statement to police, he stated he and C.H. engaged in oral sex but later changed his story and said they never engaged in any sexual acts. Finally, at trial, respondent testified he

engaged in both oral and vaginal sex with C.H. As the trial court pointed out, at trial, respondent asserted he met C.H. between midnight and 12:30 a.m. on July 11, 2006, and thereafter obtained $40 from his cousin, Destiny Nesbitt, to pay C.H. for sexual acts she agreed to perform. However, Nesbitt testified she gave respondent $40 at approximately 10:45 p.m. on July 10, 2006, at least 1 hour and 15 minutes before respondent asserted he encountered C.H. Additionally, respondent's version of the acts sur- 14 -

rounding the attempted robbery was drastically different from the acts witnessed by sheriff's deputy Good. Respondent asserted

G.W. shoved and knocked C.H. down and he only stepped on C.H.'s arm so that she could not go for her knife. C.H. screamed for

help twice, and G.W. searched her and asked where the money was. At that point, police arrived on the scene and he and G.W. fled. Good testified, however, that he heard screaming and observed two males standing over a female. The males were

screaming at the female and appeared to be striking her with their fists or hands. The female asked the males to stop hitting The female then stood

her and stated she did not have any money.

up and ran in Good's direction with the two males chasing her. When Good made his presence known, the males ran in the opposite direction. Respondent essentially asks this court to reweigh the evidence, which is not the function of a reviewing court. The

record shows the trial court thoroughly considered the evidence and made a well-reasoned determination as to credibility. The

evidence was sufficient to find respondent guilty of criminal sexual assault. On appeal, respondent next argues the trial court violated his fourteenth amendment due-process guarantees by having him shackled without an individualized determination of necessity. In People v. Boose, 66 Ill. 2d 261, 265, 362 N.E.2d 303, 305 (1977), the supreme court held that the shackling of a - 15 -

defendant is disfavored because it (1) tends to prejudice the jury, (2) restricts the defendant's ability to assist his counsel during trial, and (3) offends the dignity of the judicial process. Nevertheless, a defendant may be shackled where a manifest Boose, 66 Ill. 2d at 265-66, 362

need for restraints is shown. N.E.2d at 305.

Specifically, "[a] defendant may be shackled when

there is reason to believe that he may try to escape or that he may pose a threat to the safety of people in the courtroom or if it is necessary to maintain order during the trial." Ill. 2d at 266, 362 N.E.2d at 305. Whether to restrain the defendant is within the trial court's discretion and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. N.E.2d at 305-06. Boose, 66 Ill. 2d at 266-67, 362 Boose, 66

The court must hold a hearing outside the

presence of the jury, allowing the defendant's attorney the opportunity to argue why the defendant should not be shackled. Boose, 66 Ill. 2d at 266, 362 N.E.2d at 305. If it orders the

defendant to remain shackled, the court must also state the reasons for its decision on the record. 266, 362 N.E.2d at 305. trials. Boose, 66 Ill. 2d at

Boose applies to both bench and jury

People v. Strickland, 363 Ill. App. 3d 598, 603, 843

N.E.2d 897, 901 (2006). Here, only one small reference to respondent's shackling was made in the record. When respondent was called to

testify on his own behalf the trial court stated as follows: "Okay. You may step up. You may take off the shackles. - 16 Sir, you

may go ahead and approach the bench.

Raise your right hand." The

Respondent was then sworn in and proceeded to testify.

record contains no further mention of respondent's shackling and he made no objection, either during his trial or in a posttrial motion, to being shackled. A defendant who fails to object to shackling at trial or in a posttrial motion forfeits review of the issue on appeal. People v. Barney, 363 Ill. App. 3d 590, 593, 844 N.E.2d 80, 83 (2006). However, pursuant to the plain-error doctrine, a review-

ing court may consider otherwise forfeited issues if the evidence was closely balanced or the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a substantial right and a fair trial. Barney, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 593-94, 844 N.E.2d at 84. "[P]lain error does not automatically occur when shackles are used without a Boose hearing." App. 3d at 596, 844 N.E.2d at 86. Barney, 363 Ill.

Instead, "[w]ithout objecting

and preserving the issue for review, the defendant must show the evidence was closely balanced or 'the error was so serious it affected the fairness of his trial and challenged the judicial process's integrity.'" Barney, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 597-98, 844

N.E.2d at 87, quoting People v. Thompson, 359 Ill. App. 3d 947, 951, 835 N.E.2d 933, 936 (2005). In Strickland, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 602, 843 N.E.2d at 901, this court considered whether the defendant was denied a fair trial because the trial court ordered one of his hands to be handcuffed to a table during his jury trial. - 17 The defendant made

no objection to the court's order but argued the handcuffing resulted in plain error. 843 N.E.2d at 901. Strickland, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 602,

We declined to reverse the defendant's Strickland, 363 Ill.

conviction under the plain-error doctrine. App. 3d at 604, 843 N.E.2d at 903.

In part, we relied on People v. Hyche, 77 Ill. 2d 229, 240-41, 396 N.E.2d 6, 12 (1979), wherein the supreme court considered whether a defendant's conviction warranted reversal when he appeared before a jury in handcuffs but failed to make an objection. There, the court concluded the defendant had waived

any error by failing to object and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Hyche, 77 Ill. 2d at 241, 396 N.E.2d at 12. In

Strickland, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 604-05, 843 N.E.2d at 903, we noted the Hyche decision indicated it was "the State's compelling the defendant to wear restraints before the jury that create[d] the constitutional violation." We reasoned that "when a defen-

dant fails to object to wearing restraints, the presence of compulsion is negated, and a constitutional violation has not been established." N.E.2d at 903. Here, respondent made no objection to his shackling and the record does not indicate the trial court was even aware that he was shackled until he was called to testify. Pursuant to Strickland, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 605, 843

Strickland, reversal of respondent's convictions is not warranted by the plain-error doctrine. Also, respondent failed to satisfy either prong of the - 18 -

plain-error doctrine. closely balanced.

First, the evidence in his case was not

Respondent was charged with criminal sexual Although the testimony regarding

assault and attempted robbery.

the criminal sexual assault came down to a credibility determination between respondent and C.H., the evidence presented as a whole was not so close as to warrant application of the plainerror doctrine. During his testimony, respondent essentially

admitted his part in the attempted robbery, acknowledging that he and G.W. agreed to take money from C.H. and that he restrained C.H. while G.W. searched her for money. sions in his first statements to police. He made similar admisFurther, as discussed,

respondent's version of the events surrounding the criminalsexual-assault charge contained many inconsistencies. The dissent insists the evidence was closely balanced but only considers the evidence in connection with the criminal sexual assault. Respondent has also failed to show the error was so serious it affected the fairness of his trial and challenged the judicial process's integrity. As stated, the record does not

show the trial court was even aware that respondent was shackled until he was called to testify. If the court had not suggested

the shackles be taken off, the record would show nothing as to this issue. The court ordered the shackles removed and the

record does not reflect respondent had to continue wearing them after he testified. The record does not show the court was

prejudiced by respondent's shackles, they restricted his ability to assist his counsel, or the dignity of the judicial process was - 19 -

offended.

Additionally, more than sufficient evidence of respon-

dent's guilty was presented at his trial. Finally, we note respondent argues "shackling a minor so offends the basic notions of justice that trial courts should have a sua sponte duty to intervene." the position and respondent cites none. We find no authority for Also, again, the record

fails to show the trial court was aware of the shackles prior to when respondent was called to testify and may not have been in a position to know it needed to intervene. On appeal, respondent last argues section 5-101(3) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/5-101(3) (West 2004)), as applied to juveniles charged with sex offenses, is unconstitutional because it denies juveniles the right to a trial by jury. Specifically,

he argues section 5-101(3) of the Act violates article I, section 8, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,

Download In re Jonathan C.B..pdf