People v. Tenney (2002)
green
· 488 citation events
across 4 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200220142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
People v. Rojas (2005)
See Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d at 428-29 (“the jury was fully' aware of [the witness’ testimony’s] alleged infirmities. *** It was the jury’s function to draw conclusions based on the evidence and to decide whether there was a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt”).
“the jury was fully' aware of [the witness’ testimony’s] alleged infirmities. *** It was the jury’s function to draw conclusions based on the evidence and to decide whether there was a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt”
green
People v. Rojas Corrected opinion posted 9/21/05 (2005)
See Tenney , 205 Ill. 2d at 428-29 ("the jury was fully aware of [the witness' testimony's] alleged infirmities. *** It was the jury's function to draw conclusions based on the evidence and to decide whether there was a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt").
"the jury was fully aware of [the witness' testimony's] alleged infirmities. *** It was the jury's function to draw conclusions based on the evidence and to decide whether there was a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt"
green
People v. McAtee (2024)
Therefore, Fred’s taped confession may qualify as newly discovered now that new evidence supports the trustworthiness of the confession despite Christopher’s knowledge of the taped confession at the time of trial. ¶ 120 Since we determine new evidence may render the previously inadmissible taped confession newly discovered for consideration in the actual innocence claim, we now must ascertain whether the taped confession actually constitutes newly discovered evidence by dete…
green
People v. Gilford (2026)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Turnbow (2025)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432 (2002).
green
People v. Perez (2025)
Defendant maintains that Gloria’s failure to offer a motive and the lack of corroborating physical evidence of broken glass further undermine her credibility and create reasonable doubt. ¶ 36 Given that these arguments involve matters of credibility that are for the jury to resolve in its role as trier of fact (see People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002)), defendant essentially asks this court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury.
green
People v. Safranek (2025)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432-33 (2002).
green
People v. Mehall (2025)
Evid. 801(c), 802; People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432 (2002).
green
People v. Rickman (2025)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 429 (2002).
green
People v. Holloway (2025)
He makes much of the fact, for example, that McClaughry initially said that defendant cut his left arm but testified at trial that his right arm was cut. ¶ 30 “[I]t is the function of the jury as the trier of fact to assess the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Williams (2025)
VI). “[T]he basic objective of the Confrontation Clause *** is to prevent the accused from being deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant about statements taken for use at trial.” Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 358 (2011). “ ‘Hearsay evidence is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted ***.’ ” People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432-33 (2002) (quoting People v. 66 Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 357 (1997)).
quoting People v. 66 Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 357 (1997)
green
People v. Humphries (2024)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432-33 (2002).
green
People v. Ortega (2023)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Macedo (2023)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 436 (2002).
green
People v. Leyva (2023)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Sims (2023)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Mosley (2023)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Powell (2023)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2005). ¶ 21 The trier of fact determines the witnesses’ credibility, weighs the evidence, draws inferences, and resolves any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.
green
People v. Gordon (2022)
Jan. 1, 2011); People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432 (2002).
green
People v. Sauls (2022)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Thompson (2022)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Howard (2022)
Curiously, the State cites a hearsay case in advocating for the abuse of discretion standard (see People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 436 (2002)); however, Simmons, which pertains to Frye hearings, clearly applies here.
green
People v. Ybarra (2022)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Juarez (2022)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 436 (2002).
green
People v. Pelko (2022)
Corral, - 36 - No. 1-19-2520 2019 IL App (1st) 171501, ¶ 91 ; People v. Tenner, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Creater (2022)
Oct. 15, 2015). “ ‘Hearsay *** is generally inadmissible due to its lack of reliability unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.’ ” People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411 , 432- 33, 793 N.E.2d 571, 584-85 (2002) (quoting Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d at 357 ).
quoting Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d at 357
green
People v. Brown (2022)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 433-34 (2002).
green
People v. Greenfield (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Santillan (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Flagg (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432-33 (2002).
green
People v. Nevilles (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 429 (2002). ¶ 63 In fact, the record supports the jury’s finding that defendant had opportunities to engage in sexual acts with T.B. and B.B. at his house.
green
People v. Ruhl (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 435 (2002). ¶ 75 In ruling on the State’s pretrial motion to bar McIntosh’s testimony, the court found that McIntosh’s evidence was uncorroborated.
green
People v. Kindle (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Morris (2021)
However, “Chambers did not do away with the hearsay rule.” People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 435 (2002) (quoting Lee v. McCaughtry, 933 F.2d 536, 538 (7th Cir. 1991)).
green
People v. Powell (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 427 (2002).
green
People v. Mendez (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 429 (2002).
green
People v. Warner (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Bermudez (2021)
People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 211-12 (2004); People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Carroll (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 , 793 N.E.2d 571, 582 (2002).
green
People v. Hohl (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002).
green
People v. Aviles (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002); People v. Brooks, 187 Ill. 2d 91, 131 (1999). ¶ 26 “A person commits reckless conduct when he or she, by any means lawful or unlawful, recklessly performs an act or acts that: *** cause bodily harm to or endanger the safety of another person ***.” 720 ILCS 5/12-5(a)(1) (West 2018).
green
People v. Bennett (2021)
He cites a litany of cases where convictions based upon accomplice testimony were reversed, although he concedes that “the facts of each case are obviously unique.” However, while an accomplice witness’s testimony “has inherent weaknesses and should be accepted with caution and suspicion,” an accomplice witness’s testimony, “whether - 43 - 2021 IL App (2d) 170606-U corroborated or uncorroborated, is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction if it convinces the jury of the …
green
People v. Jackson (2021)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 427 (2002).
green
People v. Wells (2020)
Oct. 15, 2015). “ ‘Hearsay *** is generally inadmissible due to its lack of reliability unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.’ ” People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411 , 432- 33, 793 N.E.2d 571, 584-85 (2002) (quoting People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 357 , 680 N.E.2d 321, 337 (1997)).
quoting People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 357 , 680 N.E.2d 321, 337 (1997)
green
People v. Williams (2020)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 429 (2002).
green
People v. Linwood (2020)
Thus, we can determine the relevance of the excluded testimony, and need not find the issue forfeited. ¶ 36 Next, the State asserts that the court’s exclusion of Dillard’s testimony was proper “because Dillard was not credible and perpetrated a fraud upon the court.” It is well-settled, however, that “it is the function of the jury as the trier of fact to assess the credibility of witnesses,” (People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 428 (2002)), and the State has identified no ca…
green
People v. Plummer (2020)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 432-33 (2002).
green
People v. Miller (2020)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 436 (2002).
green
People v. Brown (2020)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 436 (2002); People v. Evans, 2016 IL App (3d) 140120, ¶ 28 ; People v. Calderon, 369 Ill.
green
People v. Smith (2020)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411, 436 (2002). - 11 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170299-U ¶ 32 State’s witness Sergeant Nick Cunningham of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s office testified regarding cell towers, defendant’s cell phone, and locations of various pieces of evidence recovered.