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.
30 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 5 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. Zehrgreen2 sentences2023S. Ct. R. 431(b)); see also Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d at 477 . ¶ 103 Failure to object to the court’s questioning during voir dire forfeits appellate review of any claimed Zehr error. 2022Turning to the third issue, which we reviewed for prong-one plain error, we concluded that there was a Zehr violation (People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477-78 (1984)) and, because the evidence, though sufficient, was closely balanced, there was plain error. | 7 | 11 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2021People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 606 (2010); see also People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477 (1984). ¶ 76 Failure to object to the court’s questioning during voir dire forfeits appellate review of any claimed Zehr error. 2012People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010) (observing that a Zehr error may rise to the level of plain error if the evidence is closely balanced).1 This scenario is the exact scenario claimed before us, and therefore I would find that his petition did state the gist of a constitutional claim. ¶ 47 The majority states that “[t]he trial court informed each of the separate panels of prospective jurors of the general principles in Rule 431(b).” Supra ¶ 20. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2013Consequently, Brewer forfeited, or procedurally defaulted, his challenge to the Zehr violation by failing to object and raise his claim in a posttrial motion. ¶ 19 Under Illinois’s plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and chal 2013Consequently, Brewer forfeited, or procedurally defaulted, his challenge to the Zehr violation by failing to object and raise his claim in a posttrial motion. ¶ 19 Under Illinois’s plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and chal | 2 | 3 |
Robidoux v. Oliphantgreen2 sentences2011Although supreme court rules are not statutes, they have “ ‘the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.’ ” Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 332 (2002) (quoting Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210 (1995)). 2011Although supreme court rules are not statutes, they have “ ‘the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.’ ” Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 332 (2002) (quoting Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210 (1995)). | 2 | 2 |
Bright v. Dickegreen2 sentences2011Although supreme court rules are not statutes, they have “ ‘the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.’ ” Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 332 (2002) (quoting Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210 (1995)). 2011Although supreme court rules are not statutes, they have “ ‘the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.’ ” Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 332 (2002) (quoting Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210 (1995)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Herrongreen2 sentences2013Consequently, Brewer forfeited, or procedurally defaulted, his challenge to the Zehr violation by failing to object and raise his claim in a posttrial motion. ¶ 19 Under Illinois’s plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and chal 2013Consequently, Brewer forfeited, or procedurally defaulted, his challenge to the Zehr violation by failing to object and raise his claim in a posttrial motion. ¶ 19 Under Illinois’s plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and chal | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2010Quoting language from People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 22 , 879 N.E.2d 876, 888 (2007), our supreme court invoked the rational juror standard and reasoned a Zehr violation cannot prejudice a defendant when the State’s evidence against him is so overwhelming no rational jury would have acquitted him. 2010Quoting language from People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 22 , 879 N.E.2d 876, 888 (2007), our supreme court invoked the rational juror standard and reasoned a Zehr violation cannot prejudice a defendant when the State’s evidence against him is so overwhelming no rational jury would have acquitted him. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gilbertgreen2 sentences2009App. 3d 106, 109 , 882 N.E.2d 1140 (2008) (alleged Zehr violation addressed under plain error exception as the claimed error “is of such a magnitude as to deny him a fair and impartial trial”). 2009See People v. Gilbert, 379 Ill.App.3d 106, 109 , 318 Ill.Dec. 17 , 882 N.E.2d 1140 (2008) (alleged Zehr violation addressed under plain error exception as the claimed error "is of such magnitude as to deny him a fair and impartial trial"). | 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. Glasper
green
2 sentences2010The supreme court highlighted that Rule 431(b)(4), though designed to ensure defendants have a fair jury trial, is not a constitutional right “indispensable to a fair trial.” Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d at 196 . 2010Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d at 201 , 917 N.E.2d at 418 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Belknap
green
2 sentences2023People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 47 . 2021People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 47 . | 2 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Stack
green
2 sentences2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Schneider v. Kirk
green
2 sentences2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Hope
green
2 sentences2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Lavin v. People
green
2 sentences2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Buss
green
2 sentences2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Murawski
green
2 sentences2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 2010Some of those subjects included the Zehr factors ( Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 , 83 Ill.Dec. 128 , 469 N.E.2d 1062 ); views concerning the defense of insanity ( People v. Stack, 112 Ill.2d 301 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 (1986)); racial bias in certain cases ( People v. Hope, 184 Ill.2d 39 , 234 Ill.Dec. 379 , 702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143 , 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170 , 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 18 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Emerson
green
2 sentences2005The court agreed with the State: "* * * we believe that the purpose expressed in Zehr was satisfied here by the trial judge's general admonition coupled with his subsequent discussion of the presumption of innocence." Emerson, 122 Ill.2d at 427 , 119 Ill.Dec. 250 , 522 N.E.2d 1109 . 2005The court agreed with the State: “[W]e believe that the purpose expressed in Zehr was satisfied here by the trial judge’s general admonition coupled with his subsequent discussion of the presumption of innocence.” Emerson, 122 Ill. 2d at 427 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Chester
green
1 sentence2025Likewise, this court has found that defense counsel cannot cure the court’s error by properly reciting a Zehr principle during voir dire, as “the court itself is required to address this principle.” Chester, 409 Ill. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Sebby
green
1 sentence2023Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 68 . ¶ 47 Second, the jury’s acquittal of defendant on the oral sex charges may indeed show that it did not fully believe M.D., but, more importantly, it shows that the jury understood and applied the Zehr principle that defendant was presumed innocent of the charges against him unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Naylor
green
1 sentence2020Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d at 593 . ¶ 48 C. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Floyd F. (In Re N.G.)
green
2 sentences2020Vacate Prior Convictions ¶ 182 Based on N.G., 2018 IL 121939 , defendant argues, and the State agrees, that we must vacate his AUUW conviction, as well as his UUWF conviction, which was based on his AUUW conviction. ¶ 183 In N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 42 , our supreme court found that courts have “an affirmative duty to invalidate” unconstitutional AUUW convictions “and to treat the statute on which it was based as having never existed.” Although the supreme court was deciding a termination- of-parental-rights case, it vacated the defendant’s AUUW conviction. 2020Vacate Prior Convictions ¶ 182 Based on N.G., 2018 IL 121939 , defendant argues, and the State agrees, that we must vacate his AUUW conviction, as well as his UUWF conviction, which was based on his AUUW conviction. ¶ 183 In N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 42 , our supreme court found that courts have “an affirmative duty to invalidate” unconstitutional AUUW convictions “and to treat the statute on which it was based as having never existed.” Although the supreme court was deciding a termination- of-parental-rights case, it vacated the defendant’s AUUW conviction. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2013Consequently, Brewer forfeited, or procedurally defaulted, his challenge to the Zehr violation by failing to object and raise his claim in a posttrial motion. ¶ 19 Under Illinois’s plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and chal 2013Consequently, Brewer forfeited, or procedurally defaulted, his challenge to the Zehr violation by failing to object and raise his claim in a posttrial motion. ¶ 19 Under Illinois’s plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited claim when: “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and chal | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Hammonds
green
1 sentence2011The State cites People v. Hammonds, 399 Ill. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Carter v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1992The issue here is similar to that presented in Carter v. Kentucky (1981), 450 U.S. 288 , 67 L. 1992The issue here is similar to that presented in Carter v. Kentucky (1981), 450 U.S. 288 , 67 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Poole
green
2 sentences1988(Poole, 167 Ill. 1988(Poole, 167 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Britz
green
2 sentences1987To reach this result, the court invokes People v. Britz (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 314 , which contained language suggesting that the Zehr rule would not be retroactive. 1987To reach this result, the court invokes People v. Britz (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 314 , which contained language suggesting that the Zehr rule would not be retroactive. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Zehr
green
2 sentences1987Indeed, the discussion of retroactivity in Britz was doubly unnecessary because the voir dire of which he complained occurred after the appellate court opinion in People v. Zehr (1982), 110 Ill. 1987Indeed, the discussion of retroactivity in Britz was doubly unnecessary because the voir dire of which he complained occurred after the appellate court opinion in People v. Zehr (1982), 110 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Griffith v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1987Griffith v. Kentucky (1987), 479 U.S. 314 , 93 L. 1987Griffith v. Kentucky (1987), 479 U.S. 314 , 93 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.