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 1 courts 2011–2023 15 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. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2022Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve this issue, but he argues it is a reversible plain error. ¶ 40 “The plain-error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved 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 2022Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve this issue, but he argues it is a reversible plain error. ¶ 40 “The plain-error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved 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 | 4 | 5 |
People v. Enochgreen2 sentences2022Defendant acknowledges that he failed to properly preserve this issue for appellate review (see People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)) but submits that it is a reversible plain error because the evidence was closely balanced. ¶ 10 The plain error doctrine allows a forfeited error to be reviewed 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.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 . 2021Defendant failed to properly preserve this issue for appellate review (see People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)), but he submits that it was a reversible plain error because the evidence was closely balanced. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hilliergreen2 sentences2022Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve this issue, but he argues it is a reversible plain error. ¶ 40 “The plain-error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved 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 2022See Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . | 3 | 3 |
People v. Harveygreen2 sentences2023People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 389 (2004). 2021People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 389 (2004). ¶ 57 A defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses that are based on precisely the same physical act. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2023See People v. Brown, 2018 IL App (3d) 150070-B , ¶ 12. ¶ 22 Under the one-act, one-crime rule, “a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses that are based upon precisely the same single physical act.” People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 97 (2010). 2021Although defendant forfeited review of this error, the State concedes that it is a reversible plain error. ¶ 31 Under the one-act, one-crime rule, “a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses that are based upon precisely the same single physical act.” People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 97 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Coatsgreen1 sentence2022See People v. Coats, 2018 IL 121926, ¶ 10 (stating “one-act, one-crime violations fall within the second prong of the plain error doctrine as an obvious error so serious that it challenges the integrity of the judicial process”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Emersongreen1 sentence2022People v. Emerson, 97 Ill. 2d 487, 497 (1983). ¶ 49 Even if we were to assume that the State erred by suggesting defendant induced witnesses to lie, the error would not rise to the level of reversible plain error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Herrongreen1 sentence2022Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve this issue, but he argues it is a reversible plain error. ¶ 40 “The plain-error doctrine is a narrow and limited exception.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved 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 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ellisgreen1 sentence2021“If a defendant is convicted of two offenses based on the same act, the conviction for the less serious offense must be vacated.” People v. Ellis, 401 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Virginia Erection Corporation and John P. Shieldsgreen1 sentence2017Supra ¶¶ 25-27; see also supra ¶ 36 (O’Brien, J., specially concurring). | 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. Belknap
green
2 sentences2022Defendant acknowledges that he failed to properly preserve this issue for appellate review (see People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)) but submits that it is a reversible plain error because the evidence was closely balanced. ¶ 10 The plain error doctrine allows a forfeited error to be reviewed 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.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 . 2021We find the court’s erroneous Rule 431(b) admonishment does not warrant reversal, as the evidence is not closely balanced. ¶ 23 The plain-error doctrine allows a forfeited error to be reviewed 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.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 . | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2011Rule 401(a) requires that the court advise a defendant of the nature of the charge, the minimum and maximum sentences possible, and the right to counsel, including the right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel. "[S]ubstantial compliance with Rule 401(a) is required for an effective waiver of counsel." Campbell, 224 Ill.2d at 84 , 308 Ill. 2011Rule 401(a) requires that the court advise a defendant of the nature of the charge, the minimum and maximum sentences possible, and the right to counsel, including the right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel. "[S]ubstantial compliance with Rule 401(a) is required for an effective waiver of counsel." Campbell, 224 Ill.2d at 84 , 308 Ill. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Collins
green
1 sentence2022Improper Impeachment ¶ 58 Defendant contends that the State improperly impeached John with extrinsic evidence of the number of defendant’s delinquent rent payments. ¶ 59 “Generally, any permissible kind of impeaching matter may be developed on cross- examination ***.” Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 269 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Fonder
green
1 sentence2022People v. Fonder, 2013 IL App (3d) 120178, ¶ 19 . ¶ 39 Assuming for the sake of argument that the court’s failure to instruct the jury using the complete FOID Act definition of a firearm was error, that error was not a reversible plain error. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Sebby
green
1 sentence2022When determining whether evidence is closely balanced, “a reviewing court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and conduct a qualitative, commonsense assessment of it within the context of the case.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 53. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.