People v. Caraballo

── People v. Caraballo ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 241878-U No. 1-24-1878 Order filed May 14, 2026 Fourth Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 23 MC4 002831 ) JOCELYN CARABALLO, ) Honorable ) Teresa Molina-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE NAVARRO delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lyle and Quish concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We affirm defendant’s conviction for battery where, although error occurred during voir dire, defendant failed to establish that the evidence was closely balanced for plain error review. ¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant Jocelyn Caraballo was convicted of battery and sentenced to 24 months’ conditional discharge. On appeal, she contends that the trial court committed plain error during voir dire by failing to ask whether the venirepersons understood and accepted the four No. 1-24-1878 principles outlined in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012) and that the evidence at trial was closely balanced. We affirm. ¶3 Following an incident between defendant, her sister Joanna Caraballo (Joanna), and Kiana Mendoza on June 10, 2023, Joanna and defendant were charged by misdemeanor complaint with criminal damage to property for damaging Mendoza’s necklace and iPhone (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a) (West 2022)) and battery for striking Mendoza’s face and body (id. § 12-3(a)(1)). ¶4 Before trial, the trial court granted, over defendant’s objection, the State’s motion for joinder of defendant’s and Joanna’s cases and proceeded with the selection of one jury. ¶5 The trial court began voir dire with a first panel of 14 potential jurors. The court instructed the members of the venire to raise their hands to answer a question in the affirmative. ¶6 In relevant part, the trial court stated that the defendant was presumed innocent until a jury determined, after deliberation, that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court then asked, “Does anyone disagree with this rule of law?” Commenting that no hands were raised, the court next told the venirepersons that the State bore “the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court again inquired, “Does anyone disagree with this rule of law?” It remarked that no hands were raised and continued, explaining that the defendant was not required to present any evidence and could “rely on the presumption of innocence.” The report of proceedings indicates “(no response)” was given. Without stating whether any hands were raised, the court informed the potential jurors that the defendant did not have to testify and asked whether any members of the venire would hold the defendant’s