State argues that any error in Illinois

2020People v. Thornton, 2020 IL App (1st) 170753, ¶ 23 . ¶ 38 The State argues that any error in the trial court using defendant’s immigration status as a basis to find probable cause for arrest was invited error, because, at the hearing on defendant’s motion for a new trial, defense counsel argued that they “had early alleged that it was an illegal arrest, but [he thought that] the fact that the defendant didn’t have any immigration status in the United States probably vitiate[d] that argument, so [he would] turn to the next step.” The State argues that, having conceded defendant’s lack of immigr

2020People v. Thornton, 2020 IL App (1st) 170753, ¶ 23 . ¶ 38 The State argues that any error in the trial court using defendant’s immigration status as a basis to find probable cause for arrest was invited error because, at the hearing on defendant’s motion for a new trial, defense counsel argued that they “had early alleged that it was an illegal arrest, but [he thought that] the fact that the defendant didn’t have any immigration status in the United States probably vitiate[d] that argument, so [he would] turn to the next step.” The State argues that, having conceded defendant’s lack of immigra

2012Murder is not any of those offenses, and defendant therefore asserts that a prior conviction for domestic battery is not admissible in a murder prosecution. ¶ 22 The State in response submits that defendant's interpretation of section 115-20 is contrary to the plain meaning and legislative intent because it effectively eliminates from subsection (a) the phrase "types of offenses." In the alternative, the State argues that any error in the admission of the prior domestic battery conviction for propensity purposes was harmless given that the conviction would have been admissible in any event to

2012Murder is not any of those offenses, and defendant therefore asserts that a prior conviction for domestic battery is not admissible in a murder prosecution. ¶ 22 The State in response submits that defendant’s interpretation of section 115-20 is contrary to the plain meaning and legislative intent because it effectively eliminates from subsection (a) the phrase “types of offenses.” In the alternative, the State argues that any error in the admission of the prior domestic battery conviction for propensity purposes was harmless given that the conviction would have been admissible in any event to

2011The State argues that any error was cured by the trial judge's subsequent admonishments and instructions to the jury. ¶ 86 Defendant cites People v. Lewis, 269 Ill.App.3d 523 , 206 Ill.Dec. 938 , 646 N.E.2d 305 (1995), in support of his contention that the trial court's subsequent admonishment and instructions to the jury did not cure the error.

2011The State argues that any error was cured by the trial judge’s subsequent admonishments and instructions to the jury. ¶ 86 Defendant cites People v. Lewis, 269 Ill.

1997Citing People v. Burgess, 176 Ill. 2d 289 , 680 N.E.2d 357 (1997), the State argues that any error in failing to hold a fitness hearing was harmless because defendant was evaluated by a psychologist and found fit prior to his plea.

1997Citing People v. Burgess, 176 Ill. 2d 289 , 680 N.E.2d 357 (1997), the State argues that any error in failing to hold a fitness hearing was harmless because defendant was evaluated by a psychologist and found fit prior to his plea.

1993In order to preserve an issue for review, defendant must make a contemporaneous trial objection and renew that objection in a written post-trial motion. ( People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill.2d 176, 186 , 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 271 , 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 .) Defense counsel objected when the prosecutor held up a picture of the victim before the jury members and told them to remember the picture if they started thinking that "somebody like Mr. Washington deserves a break." Defendant also raised this objection in his post-trial motion for a new trial.

1993In order to preserve an issue for review, defendant must make a contemporaneous trial objection and renew that objection in a written post-trial motion. ( People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill.2d 176, 186 , 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 271 , 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 .) Defense counsel objected when the prosecutor held up a picture of the victim before the jury members and told them to remember the picture if they started thinking that "somebody like Mr. Washington deserves a break." Defendant also raised this objection in his post-trial motion for a new trial.

2026The State’s Waiver Argument ¶ 42 Citing our supreme court’s holding in People v. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356, ¶ 24 , that a guilty plea serves as an affirmative waiver of all non-jurisdictional errors arising before the plea, the State argues that any challenge to the validity of Mr. Mageo’s 2019 waiver of counsel was not a basis on which postplea counsel could possibly have challenged his 2023 guilty plea.

2025We agree with defendant that A.W.’s presence in the courtroom constituted error, however, we agree with the State that the error was harmless. ¶ 87 “The decision whether to admit or exclude evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion resulting in manifest prejudice to the defendant.” People v. Barnes, 2013 IL App (1st) 112873, ¶ 41 .

2022People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 8 .

2021We rejected this same argument in Singletary, finding that “the admission of the prejudicial statements was not cured by a limiting instruction ‘because of the substantial risk that the jury, despite instructions to the contrary, looked to the incriminating extra-judicial statements in determining the petitioner’s guilt.’ ” Singletary, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 1086 (quoting Bruton v. -14- United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126 (1968)); see also People v. Shorty, 408 Ill. App. 3d 504, 511-12 (2011) (limiting instruction could not cure error in admitting hearsay testimony that informant told police that de

2011The State argues that any error was cured by the trial judge's subsequent admonishments and instructions to the jury. ¶ 86 Defendant cites People v. Lewis, 269 Ill.App.3d 523 , 206 Ill.Dec. 938 , 646 N.E.2d 305 (1995), in support of his contention that the trial court's subsequent admonishment and instructions to the jury did not cure the error.

1993The admission of hearsay is not reversible error if there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant if the hearsay testimony had been excluded (People v. West (1992), 234 Ill.

1984The State argues that any error as to the voir dire was harmless, and cites People v. Pitts (1982), 104 Ill.

1984The State argues that any error as to the voir dire was harmless, and cites People v. Pitts (1982), 104 Ill.

1984The State argues that any error committed by the trial court should be considered waived, since defendant did not raise it in his Rule 604(d) motion. (87 Ill. 2d R. 604(d); People v. Bartik (1981), 94 Ill.

1979The United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 17 L.

1979The United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 17 L.