Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
35 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2023–2026 35 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mancillagreen2 sentences2024People v. Mancilla, 2024 IL App (2d) 230505, ¶ 34 . ¶7 Further, the evidence in the synopsis was more than sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses. 2024People v. Mancilla, 2024 IL App (2d) 230505, ¶ 35 . ¶7 Further, the evidence in the synopsis was more than sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses. | 1 | 3 |
Chaudhary v. Department of Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2026Our supreme court has instructed that “[e]vidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74 ; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12 . ¶ 47 The defendant argued in his motion for relief that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that he committed a detainable offense. 2026See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e), (f) (West 2024). 9 Our supreme court has instructed that “[e]vidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74 ; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12 . ¶ 28 The defendant argued in his motion for relief that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that he committed a detainable offense. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2026See Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d at 344 ; 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2024). ¶ 29 C. 2026We note defendant failed to include the probable cause affidavit in the appellate record. “[T]he appellant bears the burden of providing a reviewing court with a complete record sufficient to support his claims of error, and any doubts that arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant.” People v. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d 322, 344 (2008). ¶ 28 Defendant was indicted for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(D) (West 2024)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nibbegreen1 sentence2025The victim was transported to the hospital and “declared deceased.” The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be homicide from a “vertebral artery dissection.” When questioned by the court, the ASA stated that he was not sure if the medical examiner was able to determine whether the vertebral artery dissection was caused by defendant’s strike or the victim’s fall. ¶3 In ordering defendant’s detention, the trial court found that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense of first degree murder, commenting that defendant knew “that [his] fist [wa] | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mighellgreen1 sentence2025The victim was transported to the hospital and “declared deceased.” The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be homicide from a “vertebral artery dissection.” When questioned by the court, the ASA stated that he was not sure if the medical examiner was able to determine whether the vertebral artery dissection was caused by defendant’s strike or the victim’s fall. ¶3 In ordering defendant’s detention, the trial court found that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense of first degree murder, commenting that defendant knew “that [his] fist [wa] | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crenshawgreen1 sentence2025The victim was transported to the hospital and “declared deceased.” The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be homicide from a “vertebral artery dissection.” When questioned by the court, the ASA stated that he was not sure if the medical examiner was able to determine whether the vertebral artery dissection was caused by defendant’s strike or the victim’s fall. ¶3 In ordering defendant’s detention, the trial court found that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense of first degree murder, commenting that defendant knew “that [his] fist [wa] | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greshamgreen1 sentence2025The victim was transported to the hospital and “declared deceased.” The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be homicide from a “vertebral artery dissection.” When questioned by the court, the ASA stated that he was not sure if the medical examiner was able to determine whether the vertebral artery dissection was caused by defendant’s strike or the victim’s fall. ¶3 In ordering defendant’s detention, the trial court found that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense of first degree murder, commenting that defendant knew “that [his] fist [wa] | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mandi H.green1 sentence2025Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 22 (quoting In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364, 375 (2005)). ¶ 22 For the reasons stated above, the record supports the circuit court’s finding the State showed by clear and convincing evidence the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense, posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, community, and presented a risk of willful flight. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andino-Acostagreen1 sentence2025Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 22 (quoting In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364, 375 (2005)). ¶ 22 For the reasons stated above, the record supports the circuit court’s finding the State showed by clear and convincing evidence the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense, posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, community, and presented a risk of willful flight. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2024Id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)-(3). ¶ 18 To support its charge of aggravated criminal sexual assault, the State needed to show that defendant was 17 years of age or over and held a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to B.G., that B.G. was at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age, that defendant committed an act of sexual penetration against B.G., and that during the commission of the offense he caused bodily harm to B.G. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(a)(2) (West 2022). 2024“An abuse of discretion will be found only where the trial court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 20 (2000). ¶ 16 The State argues that there was sufficient evidence that defendant committed the charged offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault, which is one of the enumerated offenses under section 110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022). ¶ 17 To deny defendant pretrial release the State needed to show by clear and convincing evidence that | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ortegagreen1 sentence2024A circuit court abuses its discretion when “ ‘its decision is “fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it.” ’ ” People v. Pacheco, 2023 IL 127535, ¶ 54 (quoting People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920, ¶ 23 , quoting People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 359 (2004)). ¶ 14 Turning to defendant’s arguments that the State failed to prove the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses, we find that the State carried its burden. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Frieberggreen1 sentence2024To show actual possession of contraband, the State must show that the contraband was “in the immediate and exclusive control of [the] defendant.” People v. Frieberg, 147 Ill. 2d 326, 360 (1992) (stating the rule for actual possession of a controlled substance). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Rodgers, 254 Ill. App. 3d 148, 151-54 (1993), vacated on other grounds, 156 Ill. 2d 564 (1994) (supervisory order), readopted in pertinent part, 265 Ill. App. 3d 1, 2 (1994) (affirming the defendant’s murder conviction where the defendant punched the victim in the head numerous times while the victim was sleeping). ¶ 42 The findings made by the trial court to support its conclusion that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense do not suggest that defendant possessed the requisite mens rea to support a first degree murder charge. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pachecogreen1 sentence2024A circuit court abuses its discretion when “ ‘its decision is “fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it.” ’ ” People v. Pacheco, 2023 IL 127535, ¶ 54 (quoting People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920, ¶ 23 , quoting People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 359 (2004)). ¶ 14 Turning to defendant’s arguments that the State failed to prove the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses, we find that the State carried its burden. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Inmangreen1 sentence2024As we have said in Inman and many times since, “ ‘A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.’ ” Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13 (quoting People v. Macias, 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 88 , 36 N.E.3d 373 ). ¶ 33 While the State used the words “probable cause” during its proffer, it summed up its argument by noting “the proof is evident and the presumption great the defendant has committed the offense based on that proffer and other evidence.” In rebuttal, the State reiterated it both ple | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodgersgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Rodgers, 254 Ill. App. 3d 148, 151-54 (1993), vacated on other grounds, 156 Ill. 2d 564 (1994) (supervisory order), readopted in pertinent part, 265 Ill. App. 3d 1, 2 (1994) (affirming the defendant’s murder conviction where the defendant punched the victim in the head numerous times while the victim was sleeping). ¶ 42 The findings made by the trial court to support its conclusion that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense do not suggest that defendant possessed the requisite mens rea to support a first degree murder charge. | 1 | 1 |
| Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodgersgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Rodgers, 254 Ill. App. 3d 148, 151-54 (1993), vacated on other grounds, 156 Ill. 2d 564 (1994) (supervisory order), readopted in pertinent part, 265 Ill. App. 3d 1, 2 (1994) (affirming the defendant’s murder conviction where the defendant punched the victim in the head numerous times while the victim was sleeping). ¶ 42 The findings made by the trial court to support its conclusion that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense do not suggest that defendant possessed the requisite mens rea to support a first degree murder charge. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leachgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Jones, 404 Ill. App. 3d 734, 742 (2010) (“A person is said to have knowledge when he is consciously aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause a particular result.”); People v. Leach, 405 Ill. App. 3d 297, 312 (2010). ¶ 38 In finding that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed first degree murder, the trial court commented that, by punching the victim, the defendant intended to “do bodily harm” which then “resulted [in] great bodily harm.” To sustain a conviction for intentional murder, however, a defendant must “intend[ ] to kill or do gr | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Jones, 404 Ill. App. 3d 734, 742 (2010) (“A person is said to have knowledge when he is consciously aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause a particular result.”); People v. Leach, 405 Ill. App. 3d 297, 312 (2010). ¶ 38 In finding that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed first degree murder, the trial court commented that, by punching the victim, the defendant intended to “do bodily harm” which then “resulted [in] great bodily harm.” To sustain a conviction for intentional murder, however, a defendant must “intend[ ] to kill or do gr | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beckergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2026People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54 . ¶ 17 First, the State established by clear and convincing evidence the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the detainable offense of first degree murder. 2026People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54 . ¶ 15 A. Proof of a Detainable Offense ¶ 16 Defendant first contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that he committed the offense of domestic battery because the State failed to prove defendant and Brown were in a qualifying relationship. | 10 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Trottier
green
2 sentences2024Id. -6- ¶ 18 In his notice of appeal, defendant asserts first that the State failed to meet its burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident and presumption great that he committed the charged offenses. 2024Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13 . ¶ 17 Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses, we begin by rejecting defendant’s arguments regarding self-defense. | 4 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Stock
green
2 sentences2026Our supreme court has instructed that “[e]vidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74 ; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12 . ¶ 47 The defendant argued in his motion for relief that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that he committed a detainable offense. 2026See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e), (f) (West 2024). 9 Our supreme court has instructed that “[e]vidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74 ; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12 . ¶ 28 The defendant argued in his motion for relief that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that he committed a detainable offense. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Woods
green
1 sentence2025Here, defendant’s criminal history included multiple prior convictions for drug offenses, he had a high-risk assessment, and he was on pretrial release at the time he was alleged to have committed the present offenses. ¶ 27 Ultimately, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s pretrial release compliant with section 110-6.1 of the Code, wherein the court found (1) defendant was charged with a detainable offense and the proof was evident or presumption great defendant committed the offense (see 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022)), (2) defendant posed a real and present threat to th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Miller
green
1 sentence2025The victim was transported to the hospital and “declared deceased.” The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be homicide from a “vertebral artery dissection.” When questioned by the court, the ASA stated that he was not sure if the medical examiner was able to determine whether the vertebral artery dissection was caused by defendant’s strike or the victim’s fall. ¶3 In ordering defendant’s detention, the trial court found that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense of first degree murder, commenting that defendant knew “that [his] fist [wa] | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Ryan B.
green
1 sentence2024There were no allegations from Carpentersville Middle School regarding inappropriate behavior with students but, regardless, counsel noted that, “he probably is not going to have a job at this school.” ¶ 12 Referencing the present case, counsel argued that, based on In re Ryan B., 212 Ill. 2d 226 , (2004), and the ordinary meanings of entice, persuade, and coerce, the State failed to show that defendant’s statement established by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offenses of sexual exploitation of a child and grooming. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Macias
green
2 sentences2024As we have said in Inman and many times since, “ ‘A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.’ ” Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13 (quoting People v. Macias, 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 88 , 36 N.E.3d 373 ). ¶ 33 While the State used the words “probable cause” during its proffer, it summed up its argument by noting “the proof is evident and the presumption great the defendant has committed the offense based on that proffer and other evidence.” In rebuttal, the State reiterated it both ple 2024As we have said in Inman and many times since, “ ‘A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.’ ” Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13 (quoting People v. Macias, 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 88 , 36 N.E.3d 373 ). ¶ 33 While the State used the words “probable cause” during its proffer, it summed up its argument by noting “the proof is evident and the presumption great the defendant has committed the offense based on that proffer and other evidence.” In rebuttal, the State reiterated it both ple | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Horne
green
1 sentence2024There is no established motive, and the shell casing was found months later and there is a viable alternative suspect with motive to kill the victim, because according to the victim’s sister, the victim had an affair with the suspect’s girlfriend, and the suspect made a statement consistent with future intent to kill the victim: “We don’t beef on social sites, we just hit our target.” ¶ 24 The State responds that defendant fails to offer an actual explanation of “how it was unreasonable for the court to determine that the evidence was sufficient to meet the People’s -8- burden to show that the | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2024The State explained how the nature of the offense—aggravated arson involving an apartment complex with 14 people present—and the commission of a violent felony while incarcerated for the arson evinced defendant’s continued threat to persons and the community as a whole. ¶ 16 In contrast, defendant’s checked boxes with somewhat cryptic points in the “Other” category fail to explain why the circuit court’s findings were an abuse of discretion. “[D]efendant, as the appellant, bears the burden of persuasion as to [his] claims of error.” Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insuran 2024The State explained how the nature of the offense—aggravated arson involving an apartment complex with 14 people present—and the commission of a violent felony while incarcerated for the arson evinced defendant’s continued threat to persons and the community as a whole. ¶ 16 In contrast, defendant’s checked boxes with somewhat cryptic points in the “Other” category fail to explain why the circuit court’s findings were an abuse of discretion. “[D]efendant, as the appellant, bears the burden of persuasion as to [his] claims of error.” Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insuran | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Watkins-Romaine
green
1 sentence2024The inability of a defendant to pay for a condition of release or any other ineligibility for a condition of pretrial release shall not be used as a justification for the pretrial detention of that defendant.” Id. § 110-5(e). ¶ 31 In the alternative, Watson contends that if the State had the authority to file a petition to detain him under section 110-6.1, then the State’s petition was untimely and should not have been considered “where it was not filed at the initial appearance before a judge or within 21 days after [he] was arrested and ordered released.” Watson does not challenge the circui | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Kladis
green
1 sentence2024A circuit court abuses its discretion when “ ‘its decision is “fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it.” ’ ” People v. Pacheco, 2023 IL 127535, ¶ 54 (quoting People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920, ¶ 23 , quoting People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 359 (2004)). ¶ 14 Turning to defendant’s arguments that the State failed to prove the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses, we find that the State carried its burden. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Raney green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Simmons green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.