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.
25 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 2 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. Hallgreen2 sentences2007Despite forfeiture, a reviewing court may consider an error under the plain error rule when the trial evidence was closely balanced or when the error is “so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 (2000); see 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a). 2007Despite forfeiture, a reviewing court may consider an error under the plain error rule when the trial evidence was closely balanced or when the error is "so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 (2000); see 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Herrongreen2 sentences2012The defendant asks us to review the error under the plain-error doctrine. ¶ 26 In People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005), the Illinois Supreme Court held that “the plain-error doctrine bypasses normal forfeiture principles and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the -5- closeness of the evidence.” Under the first prong, the defendant must prove “ ‘prejudicial error,’ ” by showing that “the evidence was so closely balanc 2012The defendant asks us to review the error under the plain-error doctrine. ¶ 26 In People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005), the Illinois Supreme Court held that “the plain-error doctrine bypasses normal forfeiture principles and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the -5- closeness of the evidence.” Under the first prong, the defendant must prove “ ‘prejudicial error,’ ” by showing that “the evidence was so closely balanc | 3 | 5 |
People v. Hilliergreen2 sentences2015People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). 2015People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Kokoraleisgreen2 sentences2000For the following reasons, we find no plain error. “ ‘Any error related to *** comments to which no objections were made would normally be considered waived unless the comments were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair trial or so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process.’ ” People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill. 2d 235, 283-84 (1989), citing People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 518 (1984). 2000For the following reasons, we find no plain error. "`Any error related to * * * comments to which no objections were made would normally be considered waived unless the comments were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair trial or so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process.'" People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill.2d 235, 283-84 , 138 Ill.Dec. 233 , 547 N.E.2d 202 (1989), citing People v. Albanese, 104 Ill.2d 504, 518 , 85 Ill.Dec. 441 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Albanesegreen2 sentences2000For the following reasons, we find no plain error. “ ‘Any error related to *** comments to which no objections were made would normally be considered waived unless the comments were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair trial or so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process.’ ” People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill. 2d 235, 283-84 (1989), citing People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 518 (1984). 2000For the following reasons, we find no plain error. "`Any error related to * * * comments to which no objections were made would normally be considered waived unless the comments were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair trial or so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process.'" People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill.2d 235, 283-84 , 138 Ill.Dec. 233 , 547 N.E.2d 202 (1989), citing People v. Albanese, 104 Ill.2d 504, 518 , 85 Ill.Dec. 441 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen1 sentence2020Pierce acknowledges forfeiting the issue, but counters that we may consider the error under the plain error doctrine. ¶ 20 A reviewing court may consider unpreserved error under the plain error doctrine when “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 a clear error occurred that was “so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2010People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 42 , 912 N.E.2d 1220, 1226 (2009). 2010People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 42 , 912 N.E.2d 1220, 1226 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hostettergreen2 sentences2009A reviewing court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if “(1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is ‘so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill. 2009App. 3d 700, 707 , 893 N.E.2d 313, 319 (2008), quoting People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 , 743 N.E.2d 521, 539 (2000). | 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. Enoch
green
2 sentences1993(See People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 .) However, he urges this court to take notice of this error under the plain error doctrine. 1993(People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 .) We will not consider the error under the plain error doctrine (see 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)) unless the error is so prejudicial that real justice has been denied or that the verdict of the jury may have resulted from the error. | 4 | 1988–1993 |
People v. Young
green
2 sentences2018Id. ¶ 77 Second, the evidence was not closely balanced. 2018Id. *671 ¶ 77 Second, the evidence was not closely balanced. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Quezada
green
1 sentence2026However, in People v. Quezada, 2024 IL 128805, ¶ 59 , our supreme court declined to apply plain error review in a similar instance. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Walker
green
1 sentence2023Walker, 232 Ill. 2d at 124-25 . ¶ 47 Section 8-4(c) provides for the sentencing of attempted murder and subsection (1) provides for various sentencing enhancements. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1993(People v. Johnson (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 170, 198 .) Since we do not consider the prosecutor’s statement to have affected substantial rights of defendant or to have denied the defendant a fair trial, we hold that defendant waived this issue on appeal. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Akis
green
2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 274 , 106 S. Ct. 267 ; People v. Akis (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 296 , 347 N.E.2d 733 .) However, if the evidence is closely balanced and an innocent person may be convicted due to some obvious error which had not been properly reserved for review, the reviewing court may consider the error under the plain error doctrine. 1990Ed. 2d 274 , 106 S. Ct. 267 ; People v. Akis (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 296 , 347 N.E.2d 733 .) However, if the evidence is closely balanced and an innocent person may be convicted due to some obvious error which had not been properly reserved for review, the reviewing court may consider the error under the plain error doctrine. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Patrick v. English
green
1 sentence1990Ed. 2d 274 , 106 S. Ct. 267 ; People v. Akis (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 296 , 347 N.E.2d 733 .) However, if the evidence is closely balanced and an innocent person may be convicted due to some obvious error which had not been properly reserved for review, the reviewing court may consider the error under the plain error doctrine. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.