sufficiency of the evidence claim in Illinois

2023See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979) (discussing the standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim).

2021When a reviewing court considers a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 6 elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2018App. 3d 481, 489 (1998)); rather, the critical inquiry on review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 278 (2004)).

2017App. 3d 481 , 489, 234 Ill.Dec. 685 , 703 N.E.2d 546 (1998) ); rather, the critical inquiry on review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Cunningham , 212 Ill. 2d 274 , 278, 288 Ill.Dec. 616 , 818 N.E.2d 304 (2004) ).

2023A reviewing court “will not retry a defendant when considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge. [Citation.] The trier of fact is best equipped to judge the credibility of witnesses, and due consideration must be given to the fact that it was the trial court *** that saw and heard the witnesses.” Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d at 114-15 . ¶ 22 The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to uphold a conviction.

2020“This court will not retry a defendant when considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.” Id., at 114–15.

2024In examining a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985).

2019See Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261 (when determining a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, a reviewing court questions whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 7 prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt).

2022People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206, 217 (2005).

2012When a defendant raises a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the relevant inquiry is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206, 217 (2005).

2011As we have already stated when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, our inquiry is limited to “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 ; accord Cox, 195 Ill. 2d at 387 .

2011As we have already stated when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, our inquiry is limited to “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 ; accord Cox, 195 Ill. 2d at 387 .

2024People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 541 (1999).

2009“This court will not retry a defendant when considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.” People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92, 114 (2007), citing People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 541 (1999).

2023See Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 566 (whether the evidence is closely balanced is a separate question from a sufficiency of the evidence claim, where “[t]he relevant inquiry for reasonable doubt purposes is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”).

2023See Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 566 (whether the evidence is closely balanced is a separate question from a sufficiency of the evidence claim).

2025People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 393 (1998).

2021People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 393 (1998).

2014People v. Jackson, 358 Ill.

2014People v. Jackson, 358 Ill.

2023People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 228 (2009).

2021In his brief, defendant’s argument focuses on the expert testimony and fails to even discuss defendant’s admissions and Tammy’s excited utterances, confirming that it was defendant who “beat her.” On direct appeal, counsel must evaluate the merits of a sufficiency of the evidence claim, recognizing that “a criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 225 (2009). ¶ 46 The argument that appellate counsel was ineffective for conceding that defen

2024See, e.g., Saxon, 374 Ill.

2024See, e.g., Saxon, 374 Ill.

2019People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30, 43 (2009).

2016People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30, 43 (2009).

2004People v. Smith , 177 Ill. 2d 53, 73 (1997).

1999People v. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d 53, 73 , 685 N.E.2d 880, 888 (1997).

2022Cf. In re Ryan B., 212 Ill. 2d 226, 231 (2004) (applying de novo review to a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to determine if uncontested facts satisfied the statutory elements of the offense).

2022Cf. In re Ryan B., 212 Ill. 2d 226, 231 (2004) (applying de novo review to a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to determine if uncontested facts satisfied the statutory elements of the offense).

2021In deciding a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “the reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution.” Id. at 280 .

2020People v. Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d 189, 217 (2002). ¶ 30 To sustain a conviction for unlawful possession with intent to deliver, the State must prove (1) defendant knew of the narcotics, (2) the narcotics were in his immediate possession or control, and (3) defendant intended to deliver the narcotics.

2024Although that would be a legally inconsistent verdict, an “inconsistent answer to the special interrogatory is not part of the sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis.” People v. Reed, 396 Ill.

2021See, e.g., id. at 649 (“the alleged inconsistent answer to the special interrogatory is not part of the sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis”).

2024People v. Hernandez, 2012 IL App (1st) 092841, ¶ 67 (“the harmless-error inquiry was, ‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’ [Citation.] This inquiry is different than that regarding sufficiency of the evidence.”).

2024People v. Hernandez, 2012 IL App (1st) 092841, ¶ 67 (“[T]he harmless-error inquiry was, ‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’ [Citation.] This inquiry is different than that regarding sufficiency of the evidence.”).

2024Specifically, defendant asserts that the State failed to show that defendant possessed the requisite intent or that he shared a common criminal design with the shooter. ¶ 30 “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, a reviewing court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. De Filippo, 11 No. 1-20-0095 235 Ill. 2d 377, 384-85 (2009).

2024Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶ 26 Respondent argues that even if the circuit court did not err by denying his motion for a directed finding, the evidence regarding whether he had been issued a FOID card was insufficient to support a conviction. ¶ 27 “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, a reviewing court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. De Fil

2023App. 3d 341, 372 (2010); see also People v. Coleman, 2011 IL App (1st) 091005, ¶ 43 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). ¶ 51 In the present case, the petitioner did not make an arguable claim that the result of his direct appeal would have been different had appellate counsel raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim regarding his aggravated kidnapping conviction. ¶ 52 The petitioner’s aggravated kidnapping conviction was premised on allegations that he knowingly and secretly confined M.B.-F. against her will and committed the felony offense of criminal sexual abuse. 720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(3)

2020Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are evaluated under the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984), which requires a showing that counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that the deficient performance was prejudicial in that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Not only did counsel fail to include a sufficiency-of- the-evidence claim supported by affidavits in the motion to withdraw, he raised the claim

2019Castillo argues that his conviction for first degree murder should be reduced to involuntary manslaughter because the evidence demonstrated that he acted recklessly and not knowingly. ¶ 25 When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the appropriate inquiry is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35 .

2018Cooper, 194 Ill. 2d at 434 . ¶ 55 When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the appropriate inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis added.) People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35 (quoting People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 , ¶ 67, quoting People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2019In re Cathy M., 326 Ill.

2018In re Cathy M. , 326 Ill.

2018Cooper, 194 Ill. 2d at 434 . ¶ 55 When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the appropriate inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis added.) People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35 (quoting People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 , ¶ 67, quoting People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2007This standard of review applies, “regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial [citation], and regardless of whether the defendant receives a bench or jury trial [citation].” People v. Cooper, 194 Ill. 2d 419, 431 (2000). -16- This court will not retry a defendant when considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.