# People v. FRANK-McCARRON

> Appellate Court of Illinois · July 29, 2010 · 403 Ill. App. 3d 383

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779619

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAREN FRANK-McCARRON, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** July 29, 2010
- **Citations:** 403 Ill. App. 3d 383; 343 Ill. Dec. 76; 934 N.E.2d 76; 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 763
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wright
- **Judges:** Holdridge, Wright
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779619

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming convictions and sentences

## Opinion text

JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring:
I agree with the majority’s analysis on all issues except the issue related to the electronic monitoring device. I agree with the majority that this defendant has forfeited the electronic monitoring device issue and also failed to meet her burden of proof as to plain error.
Here, the presence of the electronic monitoring device was brought to the court’s attention after the close of the evidence and defendant requested a curative instruction for the jury. After receiving the curative instruction, the defense did not raise the issue in a posttrial motion. Consequently, we can only review this claim of error if defendant can establish plain error. Since the evidence was not closely balanced and defendant received a curative instruction to insure the fairness of the proceedings, I join the majority’s conclusion that plain error does not exist.
Once the majority determined that no error occurred, I respectfully suggest that any discussion of whether an electronic monitoring device “may be similar to shackles” is unnecessary. Consequently, I agree with the State that this is a “faux shackling issue.” Therefore, I do not adopt the views of the majority on this issue beyond the conclusion that the electronic monitor issue has been forfeited by the defense. For this reason, I specially concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779619. Public record. Not legal advice.