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.
20 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 9 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2021People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003). 2021People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pecogreen2 sentences2008See People v. Peco, 345 Ill. 2008See People v. Peco, 345 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2016People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 , 562-63 28 No. 1-15-2504 (2007). 2013Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited error 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 challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 484 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Nicholasgreen2 sentences2012The State observes that a prosecutor is free to "comment on the evidence and any fair, reasonable inferences it yields" ( People v. Nicholas, 218 Ill.2d 104, 121 , 299 Ill.Dec. 637 , 842 N.E.2d 674 (2005)), and maintains that the prosecutor's statements in this case "rested on reasonable, common-sense inferences." Thus, according to the State, the appellate court erred in reversing defendant's conviction. ¶ 19 Whether a prosecutor may properly make the statements at issue here has divided our appellate court. 2012The State observes that a prosecutor is free to "comment on the evidence and any fair, reasonable inferences it yields" ( People v. Nicholas, 218 Ill.2d 104, 121 , 299 Ill.Dec. 637 , 842 N.E.2d 674 (2005)), and maintains that the prosecutor's statements in this case "rested on reasonable, common-sense inferences." Thus, according to the State, the appellate court erred in reversing defendant's conviction. ¶ 19 Whether a prosecutor may properly make the statements at issue here has divided our appellate court. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Urdialesgreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hudsongreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
People v. Walkergreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
People v. Durrgreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sargentgreen2 sentences2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur 2011"If error is found, the court then proceeds to consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine have been satisfied." People v. Sargent, 239 Ill.2d 166, 189-90 , 346 Ill.Dec. 441 , 940 N.E.2d 1045 (2010); see also, e.g., In re Jonathon C.B., ___ Ill.2d ___, ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (2011) ("in addressing a plain-error argument, this court first considers whether error occurred at all"); People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113, 124 , 327 Ill.Dec. 570 , 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009); People v. Hudson, 228 Ill.2d 181, 191 , 319 Ill.Dec. 840 , 886 N.E.2d 964 (2008); People v. Ur | 1 | 2 |
In re Z.J.green1 sentence2025See In re Z.J., 2020 IL App (2d) 190824, ¶ 51 (applying the plain error rule in a proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2024See Lewis, 223 Ill. 2d at 400 . - 17 - ¶ 45 The State may not attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Enochgreen1 sentence2023People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (to preserve a claim for review, a defendant must both object at trial and include the alleged error in a written posttrial motion). ¶ 32 A defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Herrongreen1 sentence2022The plain-error doctrine “bypasses normal forfeiture principles and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reveles-Cordovagreen1 sentence2021Accordingly, we review the matter for plain error. ¶ 11 “[W]hen the State charges a defendant with multiple offenses that arise ‘from a series of incidental or closely related acts and the offenses are not, by definition, lesser included offenses,’ multiple convictions and sentences can be entered.” People v. Reveles-Cordova, 2020 IL 124797, ¶ 12 (quoting People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kinggreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, we review the matter for plain error. ¶ 11 “[W]hen the State charges a defendant with multiple offenses that arise ‘from a series of incidental or closely related acts and the offenses are not, by definition, lesser included offenses,’ multiple convictions and sentences can be entered.” People v. Reveles-Cordova, 2020 IL 124797, ¶ 12 (quoting People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (1977)). 2021“This has come to be known as the one- act, one-crime doctrine.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Suzette D.green1 sentence2020In re Suzette D., 388 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2013Defendant acknowledges that he failed to properly preserve the issue, but asks that we review the matter for plain error. ¶ 45 Where “a defendant fails to object to an error at trial and include the error in a posttrial motion, he forfeits ordinary appellate review of that error.” People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 478, 484 (2010). 2013Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider a forfeited error 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 challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 484 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 | 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. Nitz
green
2 sentences2024Within this framework, “a reviewing court must examine the evidence adduced at trial and determine objectively whether a rational jury would have made the finding in question.” Id. at 414 . ¶ 276 As noted, defendants were each sentenced to 40 years in prison for criminal drug conspiracy based on Scott’s possession of over 100 grams of heroin. 2024In performing this analysis, we must “examine the evidence adduced at trial - 86 - No. 1-18-1933 and determine objectively whether a rational jury would have made the finding in question.” Nitz, 219 Ill. 2d at 414 . ¶ 274 As noted, Polk’s enhanced sentence for criminal drug conspiracy was based on Scott’s possession of 263.4 grams of heroin. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Carbajal
green
2 sentences2019Carbajal , 2013 IL App (2d) 111018 , ¶ 39, 397 Ill.Dec. 801 , 43 N.E.3d 128 . 2019Carbajal , 2013 IL App (2d) 111018 , ¶ 39, 397 Ill.Dec. 801 , 43 N.E.3d 128 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Thurow
green
1 sentence2024Id. ¶ 273 Because Polk did not object to the Apprendi violation in the trial court, we review the matter for plain error. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Modrowski
green
2 sentences2019App. 3d 735 , 743, 231 Ill.Dec. 299 , 696 N.E.2d 28 (1998) (where a prosecutor misstated the law of accountability in rebuttal closing argument but the evidence was not close and the circumstances did not support a conclusion that the defendant was prejudiced by the error, the trial court did not commit plain error by refusing to give curative instructions or declare a mistrial once the jury began deliberating). ¶ 49 We note that in Carbajal we recognized that defendants face "a substantial burden in achieving reversal of [their] conviction[s] based upon improper remarks during closing argumen 2019App. 3d 735 , 743, 231 Ill.Dec. 299 , 696 N.E.2d 28 (1998) (where a prosecutor misstated the law of accountability in rebuttal closing argument but the evidence was not close and the circumstances did not support a conclusion that the defendant was prejudiced by the error, the trial court did not commit plain error by refusing to give curative instructions or declare a mistrial once the jury began deliberating). ¶ 49 We note that in Carbajal we recognized that defendants face "a substantial burden in achieving reversal of [their] conviction[s] based upon improper remarks during closing argumen | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.