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.
17 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2026 1 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. Bannistergreen2 sentences2026See People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 91 (2008) (“[A]ny improper inferences from the prosecutor’s comments were cured by the trial court sustaining defense counsel’s objections and the court’s instructions to the jury to disregard comments to which objections were sustained.”). 2018Runge, 234 Ill. 2d at 143 ; see People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 91 (2008) (“any improper inferences from the prosecutor’s comments were cured by the trial court sustaining defense counsel’s objections and the court’s instructions to the jury to disregard comments to which objections were sustained”); Harris, 225 Ill. 2d at 33 (in considering the possibility of prejudice, the court noted that “defense counsel’s objection to the comments was sustained and the jury was properly instructed that the arguments of counsel were not evidence that it could consider”). ¶ 77 Examining the State’s ent | 4 | 4 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2018Runge, 234 Ill. 2d at 143 ; see People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 91 (2008) (“any improper inferences from the prosecutor’s comments were cured by the trial court sustaining defense counsel’s objections and the court’s instructions to the jury to disregard comments to which objections were sustained”); Harris, 225 Ill. 2d at 33 (in considering the possibility of prejudice, the court noted that “defense counsel’s objection to the comments was sustained and the jury was properly instructed that the arguments of counsel were not evidence that it could consider”). ¶ 77 Examining the State’s ent 2017Runge , 234 Ill. 2d at 143 , 334 Ill.Dec. 865 , 917 N.E.2d 940 ; see People v. Bannister , 232 Ill. 2d 52 , 91, 327 Ill.Dec. 450 , 902 N.E.2d 571 (2008) ("any improper inferences from the prosecutor's comments were cured by the trial court sustaining defense counsel's objections and the court's instructions to the jury to disregard *420 comments to which objections were sustained"); Harris , 225 Ill. 2d at 33 , 310 Ill.Dec. 351 , 866 N.E.2d 162 (in considering the possibility of prejudice, the court noted that "defense counsel's objection to the comments was sustained and the jury was properly | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2018We find, instead, an “isolated remark,” which did not constitute “a major theme in the State’s argument.” People v. Cloutier, 178 Ill. 2d 141, 168 (1997); see also People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 26 (2000). 2017We find, instead, an "isolated remark," which did not constitute "a major theme in the State's argument." People v. Cloutier , 178 Ill. 2d 141 , 168, 227 Ill.Dec. 448 , 687 N.E.2d 930 (1997) ; see also People v. Hall , 195 Ill. 2d 1 , 26, 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nealgreen2 sentences2008People v. Neal, 111 Ill. 2d 180, 196 (1985). 2008People v. Neal, 111 Ill.2d 180, 196 , 95 Ill.Dec. 283 , 489 N.E.2d 845 (1985). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kiddgreen2 sentences1998In my opinion, merely holding that any error was cured by the trial court’s sustaining the defense objection to the remark does not adequately dispose of the issue.” Kidd, 175 Ill. 2d at 58 , 675 N.E.2d at 937 (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.). 1998In my opinion, merely holding that any error was cured by the trial court’s sustaining the defense objection to the remark does not adequately dispose of the issue.” Kidd, 175 Ill. 2d at 58 , 675 N.E.2d at 937 (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cloutiergreen2 sentences2018We find, instead, an “isolated remark,” which did not constitute “a major theme in the State’s argument.” People v. Cloutier, 178 Ill. 2d 141, 168 (1997); see also People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 26 (2000). 2017We find, instead, an "isolated remark," which did not constitute "a major theme in the State's argument." People v. Cloutier , 178 Ill. 2d 141 , 168, 227 Ill.Dec. 448 , 687 N.E.2d 930 (1997) ; see also People v. Hall , 195 Ill. 2d 1 , 26, 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Olejniczakgreen1 sentence1981See People v. Olejniczak (1979), 73 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
The PEOPLE v. Farmergreen2 sentences1971People v. Farmer, 28 Ill.2d 521, 524 (1963).” “The arguments by the State that the jury would have to bring some law and order and if the jury did not make a finding of guilty then the judge, sheriff and State’s Attorney might as well be fired were objected to by the defense and the objection was sustained. 1971People v. Farmer, 28 Ill.2d 521 (1963).” “The Assistant State’s Attorney’s remarks, that it was not logical for Davis’ mother to have allowed the police to keep her son in custody since she knew he was at home on the night of the incident was objected to by the defense and the sustaining of the objection removed all prejudicial effect the statement may have had. | 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. Runge
green
2 sentences2018Runge, 234 Ill. 2d at 143 ; see People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 91 (2008) (“any improper inferences from the prosecutor’s comments were cured by the trial court sustaining defense counsel’s objections and the court’s instructions to the jury to disregard comments to which objections were sustained”); Harris, 225 Ill. 2d at 33 (in considering the possibility of prejudice, the court noted that “defense counsel’s objection to the comments was sustained and the jury was properly instructed that the arguments of counsel were not evidence that it could consider”). ¶ 77 Examining the State’s ent 2017Runge , 234 Ill. 2d at 143 , 334 Ill.Dec. 865 , 917 N.E.2d 940 ; see People v. Bannister , 232 Ill. 2d 52 , 91, 327 Ill.Dec. 450 , 902 N.E.2d 571 (2008) ("any improper inferences from the prosecutor's comments were cured by the trial court sustaining defense counsel's objections and the court's instructions to the jury to disregard *420 comments to which objections were sustained"); Harris , 225 Ill. 2d at 33 , 310 Ill.Dec. 351 , 866 N.E.2d 162 (in considering the possibility of prejudice, the court noted that "defense counsel's objection to the comments was sustained and the jury was properly | 2 | 2017–2018 |
People v. DeSantiago
green
1 sentence2015Desantiago, 365 Ill. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Henderson
green
1 sentence1993Although the comment was improper, bearing no relevance to defendant Gray’s guilt or innocence, its impropriety does not automatically trigger reversible error. “[C]omments constitute reversible error only when they engender substantial prejudice against a defendant (see, e.g., People v. Tiller (1982), 94 Ill. 2d 303, 321 ), such that it is impossible to say whether or not a verdict of guilt resulted from those comments.” (People v. Henderson (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 258, 323 .) We believe that the trial court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection and its admonition to the jury, “[n]either op | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Tiller
green
1 sentence1993Although the comment was improper, bearing no relevance to defendant Gray’s guilt or innocence, its impropriety does not automatically trigger reversible error. “[C]omments constitute reversible error only when they engender substantial prejudice against a defendant (see, e.g., People v. Tiller (1982), 94 Ill. 2d 303, 321 ), such that it is impossible to say whether or not a verdict of guilt resulted from those comments.” (People v. Henderson (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 258, 323 .) We believe that the trial court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection and its admonition to the jury, “[n]either op | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Graca
green
1 sentence1993App. 3d 214, 221 , 580 N.E.2d 1328, 1334 .) Accordingly, any error resulting from the prosecutor’s statement in the present case was cured by the trial court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection and subsequent instructions to the jury. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Lilly
neutral
1 sentence1992(People v. Lilly (1985), 139 Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Walker
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Hooper (1989), 133 Ill. 2d 469, 500 ; People v. Gacho (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 221 ; People v. Walker (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 502, 515 .) In Hooper this court stated that speculating that the defendant, if not executed, might kill a prison guard was inflammatory and was not cured by the court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection to the comments. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Gacho
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Hooper (1989), 133 Ill. 2d 469, 500 ; People v. Gacho (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 221 ; People v. Walker (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 502, 515 .) In Hooper this court stated that speculating that the defendant, if not executed, might kill a prison guard was inflammatory and was not cured by the court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection to the comments. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Hooper
green
2 sentences1991(People v. Hooper (1989), 133 Ill. 2d 469, 500 ; People v. Gacho (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 221 ; People v. Walker (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 502, 515 .) In Hooper this court stated that speculating that the defendant, if not executed, might kill a prison guard was inflammatory and was not cured by the court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection to the comments. 1991People v. Hooper, 133 Ill. 2d at 500 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Bunch
green
1 sentence1991App. 3d 494 , the defendants argued in closing, without any support, that the State’s witnesses were lying and had a reason to lie; the prosecutor responded by asking the jury, “has either one of those two gentlemen stepped up here and given you that reason[?].” While the court held that any prejudice was cured by the court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection and by its instruction to the jury to ignore the statement, the court also held that the response was nevertheless justifiable and not improper. 159 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Hunter
green
1 sentence1986People v. Hunter (1984), 124 Ill. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Guthery v. Guthery
neutral
1 sentence1986Ed. 2d 68 , 103 S. Ct. 68 .) Any prejudice to defendant was cured by the trial court’s sustaining of defense objections. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Beller
green
2 sentences1981Ed. 2d 296 , 90 S. Ct. 1881 .) In view of the trial court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection, the tangential nature of Walker’s potential testimony (see People v. Better (1979), 74 Ill. 2d 514, 526 , 386 N.E.2d 857 ), and the strength of the State’s evidence against defendant, we conclude that the remarks were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 1981Ed. 2d 296 , 90 S. Ct. 1881 .) In view of the trial court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection, the tangential nature of Walker’s potential testimony (see People v. Better (1979), 74 Ill. 2d 514, 526 , 386 N.E.2d 857 ), and the strength of the State’s evidence against defendant, we conclude that the remarks were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.