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.
19 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 8 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. Patrickgreen2 sentences2026“Where the defendant invited the error, our supreme court has declined to address any related plain-error claim.” People v. Johnson, 2013 IL App (2d) 110535, ¶ 77 (citing People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62 (2009)). 2024I have no objection.” By doing so, he invited the erroneous instruction. ¶ 73 “Where the defendant invited the error, our supreme court has declined to address any related plain-error claim.” People v. Johnson, 2013 IL App (2d) 110535, ¶ 77 (citing People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62 (2009)). | 10 | 12 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2026“Where the defendant invited the error, our supreme court has declined to address any related plain-error claim.” People v. Johnson, 2013 IL App (2d) 110535, ¶ 77 (citing People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62 (2009)). 2024I have no objection.” By doing so, he invited the erroneous instruction. ¶ 73 “Where the defendant invited the error, our supreme court has declined to address any related plain-error claim.” People v. Johnson, 2013 IL App (2d) 110535, ¶ 77 (citing People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62 (2009)). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Harveygreen2 sentences2016We reject the State’s suggestion that, because defendant did not object to the instruction, he “agreed on the record to use the instruction.” See Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d at 384-87 (rejecting the State’s argument that one of the defendants invited the error by failing to object to the use of certain evidence at trial); cf. People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 77 (2009) (the defendant invited the error by tendering the instruction at issue). 2016We reject the State’s suggestion that, because defendant did not object to the instruction, he “agreed on the record to use the instruction.” See Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d at 384-87 (rejecting the State’s argument that one of the defendants invited the error by failing to object to the use of certain evidence at trial); cf. People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 77 (2009) (the defendant invited the error by tendering the instruction at issue). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 77 (2009)." Johnson, 2013 IL App (2d) 110535, ¶ 77 . ¶ 110 "The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a defendant from unfairly receiving a second trial based on an error which he injected into the proceedings." People v. Smith, 406 Ill. 2015See, e.g., People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 77 (2009).” Johnson, 2013 IL App (2d) 110535, ¶ 77 . ¶ 110 “The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a defendant from unfairly receiving a second trial based on an error which he injected into the proceedings.” People v. Smith, 406 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2021Id. 2021Id. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Hardinggreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 76 (2009).” (Emphasis added.) People v. Harding, 2012 IL App (2d) 101011, ¶ 17 . -3- 2024 IL App (2d) 24-0098-U ¶ 11 We hold the continuance requested by counsel invited any error, and therefore defendant forfeited the review of this issue under plain error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Davis, 2024 IL App (5th) 240120, ¶¶ 18-26 . ¶ 16 Yet another reason that the defendant’s appeal must fail is that the defendant invited the error he now seeks to complain of. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2023Accordingly, in this instance, we consider only whether Luchtenberg provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue that defendant was entitled to elect sentencing under the more favorable, amended version of section 5-4.5-95(b) of the Code. ¶ 32 To establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must show both that (1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) he suffered prejudice “in that, absent counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Peo | 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. Moore
neutral
2 sentences2014Accordingly, we vacate the part of the court’s order that stated, “Clerk to pay restitution 1st.” See Moore, 2013 IL App (3d) 110474, ¶ 12 . ¶ 14 Because, as discussed below, this cause must be remanded for further proceedings, we direct the court to consider on remand whether to enter an order specifying that defendant’s bond money will be used to pay restitution after his bond is applied to the fines and costs imposed. -7- 2014 IL App (2d) 120888 The trial court may also consider defendant’s ability to pay and determine whether the restitution should be paid in a single payment or in install 2014Accordingly, we vacate the part of the court’s order that stated, “Clerk to pay restitution 1st.” See Moore, 2013 IL App (3d) 110474, ¶ 12 . ¶ 14 Because, as discussed below, this cause must be remanded for further proceedings, we direct the court to consider on remand whether to enter an order specifying that defendant’s bond money will be used to pay restitution after his bond is applied to the fines and costs imposed. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2023Where a defendant’s counsel has specifically asked the trial court to proceed in a particular manner, “[t]he doctrine of invited error blocks [the] defendant from raising th[e] issue on appeal, absent ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Henderson, 2016 IL App (1st) 142259, ¶ 210 , 77 N.E.3d 1046 ; People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 77 , 908 N.E.2d 1, 10 (2009) (declining to address the defendant’s plain-error claim because the defendant invited the error). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2023Accordingly, in this instance, we consider only whether Luchtenberg provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue that defendant was entitled to elect sentencing under the more favorable, amended version of section 5-4.5-95(b) of the Code. ¶ 32 To establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must show both that (1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) he suffered prejudice “in that, absent counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Peo | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Villarreal
green
1 sentence2020“Where the defendant invited the error, our supreme court has declined to address any related plain-error claim.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Higgins
green
1 sentence2014Accordingly, we vacate the part of the court’s order that stated, “Clerk to pay restitution 1st.” See Moore, 2013 IL App (3d) 110474, ¶ 12 . ¶ 14 Because, as discussed below, this cause must be remanded for further proceedings, we direct the court to consider on remand whether to enter an order specifying that defendant’s bond money will be used to pay restitution after his bond is applied to the fines and costs imposed. -7- 2014 IL App (2d) 120888 The trial court may also consider defendant’s ability to pay and determine whether the restitution should be paid in a single payment or in install | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Cisewski
green
2 sentences1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte 1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Smothers
green
2 sentences1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte 1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Stock
green
2 sentences1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte 1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte 1991At the outset, it should be noted that prosecutors have a great deal of latitude in making closing arguments ( People v. Morgan (1986), 112 Ill.2d 111, 131 , 97 Ill.Dec. 430 , 492 N.E.2d 1303 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill.2d 461, 467 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), and the trial court's determination as to the propriety, and possible prejudicial effect, of the prosecutor's closing argument will be followed, absent a clear abuse of discretion. ( People v. Smothers (1973), 55 Ill.2d 172, 176 , 302 N.E.2d 324 .) In order for a remark to be deemed reversible error, the complained-of remark must have resulte | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.