How cited: People v. Davis · Go Syfert

People v. Davis (2007)

green · 67 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 25 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 25
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200920172026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green People v. Romero (2018)
Quote Authority · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see also · 3 citations in this opinion
People v. Kliner , 185 Ill. 2d 81 , 161, 235 Ill.Dec. 667 , 705 N.E.2d 850 (1998) ; see also People v. Davis , 378 Ill.
"The reason for relaxing the waiver rule is that the objection would have fallen on deaf ears."
green People v. Cetwinski (2019)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct. · 2 citations in this opinion
The Sprinkle doctrine has also been applied in select contexts where, even in the absence of a jury, an objection would likely “ ‘have fallen on deaf ears.’ ” Id. at 488 (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. McLaurin (2009)
Rule Authority · Ill. · 2 citations in this opinion
In so doing, we have implicitly recognized that in some extraordinary circumstances, an objection “would have fallen on deaf ears.” People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Velazquez (2025)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
No duty to object exists if that objection “ ‘would have fallen on deaf ears.’ ” People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 488 (2009) (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Hedrick (2025)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
In Sprinkle, our supreme court relaxed the requirement for timely and proper objections and preservations of rulings “where the basis for the objection is the conduct of the trial judge” (id. at 401), and therefore the objection “ ‘would have fallen on deaf ears.’ ” People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 488 (2009) (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Tyler (2023)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
Id. (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Fisher (2023)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
Defendant nevertheless argues that the supreme court, in People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478 (2009), recognized that Sprinkle’s holding has been applied in “some extraordinary circumstances” when an objection “ ‘would have fallen on deaf ears.’ ” McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d at 487 -88 (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Akinbosoye (2022)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
Given all that transpired, “ ‘defendant’s decision not to testify must be viewed as [trial] strategy with which he -6- 2022 IL App (2d) 210533-U agreed.’ ” People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
quoting People v. Smith, 176 Ill. 2d 217, 235-36 (1997)
green People v. Stout (2022)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
Alternatively, defendant requests that we review the issue for plain error. ¶ 14 The Sprinkle doctrine allows a reviewing court to relax forfeiture rules where counsel has been effectively prevented from objecting because it “ ‘would have fallen on deaf ears.’ ” People 5 v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 488 (2009) (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Johnson (2020)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Romero (2018)
Quote Authority · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see also
People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81, 161 (1998); see also People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
“The reason for relaxing the waiver rule is that the objection would have fallen on deaf ears.”
green People v. Anaya (2018)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. House (2017)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
In re Julian K., 2012 IL App (1st) 112841, ¶ 66 (the trial court is in the best position to make credibility determinations); People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
while the trial judge is able to hear a witness’s “tone of voice and pauses, and observe his body language as he delivered his answer, that information is obviously missing from the dry transcript before this reviewing court”
green People v. House (2015)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
In re Julian K., 2012 IL App (1st) 112841, ¶ 66 (the trial court is in the best position to make credibility determinations); People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
while the trial judge is able to hear a witness's "tone of voice and pauses, and observe his body language as he delivered his answer, that information is obviously missing from the dry transcript before this reviewing court"
green People v. Brown (2013)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Hammonds (2011)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Hammonds (2011)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Hammonds (2010)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
“The reason for relaxing the waiver rule is that the objection would have fallen on deaf ears.” People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Brisco (2012)
Cited · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
green People v. Cetwinski (2018)
Cited · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see
See id.
green People v. Jaimes (2015)
Cited (see also) · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see also
See People v. Beltran, 2011 IL App (2d) 090856, ¶ 68 (trial court was in better position to assess whether prosecutor’s use of an “emotional voice” improperly inflamed the passions of the jury or prejudiced the defendant); see also People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
trial court is in far superior position than reviewing court to assess witness’s tone of voice
green People v. Jaimes (2014)
Cited (see also) · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see also
See People v. Beltran, 2011 IL App (2d) 090856, ¶ 68 (trial court was in better position to assess whether prosecutor’s use of an “emotional voice” improperly inflamed the passions of the jury or prejudiced the defendant); see also People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
trial court is in far superior position than reviewing court to assess witness’s tone of voice
green People v. Black (2012)
Cited (see also) · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see, e.g.
Assem., House Proceedings, Feb. 22, 2006, at 13 (statements of Representative Fritchey, bill sponsor); see also Cardona, 2012 IL App (2d) 100542, ¶ 44 (and cases cited therein (noting preamendment cases wherein the defendants clearly had alternative motives like ransom or gang violence for their offenses against the children)); see, e.g., People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
defendant, who appeared to be on drugs, stole running vehicle that happened to have baby in back, then apparently requested ransom, but was nevertheless required to register as sex offender
green People v. Beltran (2011)
Cited · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see
See generally People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
trial court is in far superior position than reviewing court to assess witness's tone of voice
green People v. Beltran (2011)
Cited · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see
See generally People v. Davis, 378 Ill.
trial court is in far superior position than reviewing court to assess witness’s tone of voice