114 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 19 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. Enochgreen2 sentences2023See People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 65 (2008) (to preserve an issue for review and avoid forfeiture, a contemporaneous objection at trial and a written posttrial motion raising the issue are required (citing People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988))). ¶ 28 Defendant contends that we should review the issue as plain error. 2020People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988); People v. Denson, 2014 IL 116231, ¶ 18 . ¶ 80 The defendant asks this court to consider the issue as plain error. | 8 | 16 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2025People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010) (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)). 2021People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007). | 6 | 8 |
People v. Herrettgreen2 sentences1993(People v. Herrett (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 195 , 561 N.E.2d 1 .) A reviewing court may consider an issue as plain error when the evidence at trial was closely balanced or when the error was so fundamental that the defendant was denied a fair trial. 1993(People v. Herrett (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 195 , 561 N.E.2d 1 .) A reviewing court may consider an issue as plain error when the evidence at trial was closely balanced or when the error was so fundamental that the defendant was denied a fair trial. | 4 | 7 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 (to avoid forfeiture, defendant must object at trial and raise the issue in a posttrial motion); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 611-12 (where the defendant did not object at trial or raise the issue in a posttrial motion, Rule 431(b) violation was forfeited and considered only for plain error). 2025People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010) (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Hindsongreen2 sentences2020The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review an unpreserved error “if either [(1)] the evidence was closely balanced or [(2)] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial.” People v. Hindson, 301 Ill. 2019The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review unpreserved error in two situations: "if either [ (1) ] the evidence was closely balanced or [ (2) ] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial." People v. Hindson , 301 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Harveygreen2 sentences2020People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 389 (2004). 2019People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 386 (2004). ¶ 19 In his reply brief, defendant argues that we should consider the issue as plain error. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hilliergreen2 sentences2026People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010) (“when a defendant fails to - 11 - present an argument on how either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine is satisfied, he forfeits plain-error review”). 2025Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545-46 ; see also Ill. | 2 | 6 |
People v. Sebbygreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 (to avoid forfeiture, defendant must object at trial and raise the issue in a posttrial motion); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 611-12 (where the defendant did not object at trial or raise the issue in a posttrial motion, Rule 431(b) violation was forfeited and considered only for plain error). 2025See Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 (allowing forfeited issues to be considered on appeal). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Herrongreen2 sentences2021Plain error review is appropriate when (1) a clear error occurred and the evidence is closely balanced so “that the error alone severely 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.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005). 2009Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may address unpreserved errors when (1) the evidence is closely balanced such that the guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the evidence, or (2) the error is so serious that the defendant was denied a substantial right, affecting the integrity of the judicial process. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2020Our supreme court reviewed the issue as plain error, noting that “ ‘[t]he imposition of an unauthorized sentence affects substantial rights.’ ” Id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Hicks, 181 Ill. 2d 541, 545 (1998)). ¶ 80 The defendant argued that, since he was convicted of second degree murder instead of first degree murder, he should have been sentenced as a juvenile under section 5-130(1)(c)(ii). 2020Our supreme court reviewed the issue as plain error, noting that “ ‘[t]he imposition of an unauthorized sentence affects substantial rights.’ ” Id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Hicks, 181 Ill. 2d 541, 545 (1998)). ¶ 80 The defendant argued that, since he was convicted of second degree murder instead of first degree murder, he should have been sentenced as a juvenile under section 5-130(1)(c)(ii). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2017See People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285, 303 (2011). 2017See People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285, 303 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2017Judicial bias “is one of the few trial errors that may not be deemed harmless; moreover, the waiver rule is applied less rigidly where the conduct of the trial judge is the basis for the appeal.” People v. Williams, 272 Ill. 2017Judicial bias “is one of the few trial errors that may not be deemed harmless; moreover, the waiver rule is applied less rigidly where the conduct of the trial judge is the basis for the appeal.” People v. Williams, 272 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Billopsgreen2 sentences2008Therefore, the defendant’s one-act, one-crime issue is a type of double jeopardy argument. “ ‘[T]he seriousness of a double jeopardy issue and the [intimate] relationship of the issue to the integrity and fairness of judicial proceedings warrant considering the issue as plain error.’ ” People v. Billops, 125 Ill. 2008Therefore, the defendant's one-act, one-crime issue is a type of double jeopardy argument. "[T]he seriousness of a double jeopardy issue and the [intimate] relationship of the issue to the integrity and fairness of judicial proceedings warrant considering the issue as plain error." People v. Billops, 125 Ill.App.3d 483, 485 , 80 Ill.Dec. 852 , 466 N.E.2d 304, 306 (1984), quoting People v. Valentine, 122 Ill.App.3d 782, 784 , 78 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Detention of Traynoffgreen2 sentences2004In re Detention of Traynoff, 338 Ill. 2004In re Detention of Traynoff , 338 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tisdelgreen2 sentences2001Defendant claims that the plain error exception applies to his case both because the improper jury instruction "infected the jury's ability to properly deliberate and consider the identification testimony against [defendant]" and because the evidence in this case was "closely balanced." "The plain error doctrine (134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)) may be applied where the evidence is closely balanced or where the error is of such magnitude that it denied the accused a fair trial." People v. Tisdel , 316 Ill. 2001Defendant claims that the plain error exception applies to his case both because the improper jury instruction “infected the jury’s ability to properly deliberate and consider the identification testimony against [defendant]” and because the evidence in this case was “closely balanced.” “The plain error doctrine (134 Ill. 2d R 615(a)) may be applied where the evidence is closely balanced or where the error is of such magnitude that it denied the accused a fair trial.” People v. Tisdel, 316 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mahaffeygreen2 sentences1999The plain error exception is properly applied when the evidence is closely balanced, or when the error is so substantial that it denied the defendant a fair proceeding (People v. Mahaffey, 166 Ill. 2d 1, 27 (1995)) and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process (People v. Herrett, 137 Ill. 2d 195, 214 (1990)). 1999The plain error exception is properly applied when the evidence is closely balanced, or when the error is so substantial that it denied the defendant a fair proceeding ( People v. Mahaffey, 166 Ill.2d 1, 27 , 209 Ill.Dec. 607 , 651 N.E.2d 1055 (1995)) and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process ( People v. Herrett, 137 Ill.2d 195, 214 , 148 Ill.Dec. 695 , 561 N.E.2d 1 (1990)). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Valentinegreen2 sentences2008Therefore, the defendant's one-act, one-crime issue is a type of double jeopardy argument. "[T]he seriousness of a double jeopardy issue and the [intimate] relationship of the issue to the integrity and fairness of judicial proceedings warrant considering the issue as plain error." People v. Billops, 125 Ill.App.3d 483, 485 , 80 Ill.Dec. 852 , 466 N.E.2d 304, 306 (1984), quoting People v. Valentine, 122 Ill.App.3d 782, 784 , 78 Ill. 2008Therefore, the defendant's one-act, one-crime issue is a type of double jeopardy argument. "[T]he seriousness of a double jeopardy issue and the [intimate] relationship of the issue to the integrity and fairness of judicial proceedings warrant considering the issue as plain error." People v. Billops, 125 Ill.App.3d 483, 485 , 80 Ill.Dec. 852 , 466 N.E.2d 304, 306 (1984), quoting People v. Valentine, 122 Ill.App.3d 782, 784 , 78 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
| People v. Baezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bannistergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Nicholasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Grahamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Escalantegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Burnettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Martingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sargentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kitchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Carlsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lindsaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wallacegreen | 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. Young
green
2 sentences1995(People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176 .) Nonetheless, defendant urges us to review this issue as plain error. (134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).) We may review an alleged error not properly preserved where "the evidence is closely balanced or the error is of such magnitude that the commission thereof denies the accused a fair and impartial trial or sentencing hearing.” (People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 1, 47 .) Because the remarks, as defendant characterizes them, could have had the effect of denying defendant a fair sentencing hearing, we review defendant’s claim. 1994The plain error doctrine applies only where necessary to correct "serious injustices” (People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 1, 46 , 538 N.E.2d 453 ) or, more specifically, "[where] the question of guilt is close and the evidence in question might have significantly affected the outcome of the case” or where the error is so substantial that it impacts on the fairness and impartiality of the trial. | 4 | 1991–1995 |
People v. Downs
green
2 sentences2015Id. ¶ 76 Defendant’s plain error arguments consists entirely as follows: “However, this Court can reach the merits of this issue as plain error because a court’s failure to admonish a defendant pursuant to Rule 402 affects substantial rights. 2015Id. ¶ 76 Defendant’s plain error arguments consist entirely as follows: “However, this Court can reach the merits of this issue as plain error because a court’s failure to admonish a defendant pursuant to Rule 402 affects substantial rights. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Carr
green
2 sentences2004Defendant argues that People v. Carr , 149 Ill. 2004Defendant argues that People v. Carr, 149 Ill. | 3 | 2002–2004 |
People v. Sanders
green
2 sentences1994The plain error doctrine applies only where necessary to correct "serious injustices" ( People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill.2d 1, 46 , 131 Ill.Dec. 78 , 538 N.E.2d 453 ), or more specifically, "where the question of guilt is close and the evidence in question might have significantly affected the outcome of the case", or where the error is so substantial that it impacts on the fairness and impartiality of the trial. ( People v. Sanders (1983), 99 Ill.2d 262, 273 , 75 Ill.Dec. 682 , 457 N.E.2d 1241 ; People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill.2d 1, 14 , 25 Ill.Dec. 675 , 387 N.E.2d 331 .) This is not such a 1994The plain error doctrine applies only where necessary to correct "serious injustices" ( People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill.2d 1, 46 , 131 Ill.Dec. 78 , 538 N.E.2d 453 ), or more specifically, "where the question of guilt is close and the evidence in question might have significantly affected the outcome of the case", or where the error is so substantial that it impacts on the fairness and impartiality of the trial. ( People v. Sanders (1983), 99 Ill.2d 262, 273 , 75 Ill.Dec. 682 , 457 N.E.2d 1241 ; People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill.2d 1, 14 , 25 Ill.Dec. 675 , 387 N.E.2d 331 .) This is not such a | 3 | 1990–1994 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences2021In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 , 956 N.E.2d 379 , our supreme court noted, “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced ***.” Because we believe this Miranda violation prejudiced defendant and the evidence was closely balanced, we accept defendant’s invitation to analyze this issue as plain error. ¶ 16 We first note plain error was not argued in defendant’s opening brief and, as a result, the Stat 2021In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 , 956 N.E.2d 379 , our supreme court noted, “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced ***.” Because we believe this Miranda violation prejudiced defendant and the evidence was closely balanced, we accept defendant’s invitation to analyze this issue as plain error. ¶ 16 We first note plain error was not argued in defendant’s opening brief and, as a result, the Stat | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences2021In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 , 956 N.E.2d 379 , our supreme court noted, “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced ***.” Because we believe this Miranda violation prejudiced defendant and the evidence was closely balanced, we accept defendant’s invitation to analyze this issue as plain error. ¶ 16 We first note plain error was not argued in defendant’s opening brief and, as a result, the Stat 2021In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 , 956 N.E.2d 379 , our supreme court noted, “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced ***.” Because we believe this Miranda violation prejudiced defendant and the evidence was closely balanced, we accept defendant’s invitation to analyze this issue as plain error. ¶ 16 We first note plain error was not argued in defendant’s opening brief and, as a result, the Stat | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Tisdel
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 215-16 . 2014Id. at 215-16 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Furdge
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 1031 . 2014Id. at 1031 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Jamison
green
2 sentences2010Both the State and defendant acknowledge that the supreme court in People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184 , 890 N.E.2d 929 (2008), determined that section 10, applied in instances such as the current one where other fines have been imposed, and that the rate of the additional section 12 10 fine was calculated at $4 per every $40 of the other fine. 2010Both the State and defendant acknowledge that the supreme court in People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184 , 890 N.E.2d 929 (2008), determined that section 10, applied in instances such as the current one where other fines have been imposed, and that the rate of the additional section 12 10 fine was calculated at $4 per every $40 of the other fine. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Simpson
green
2 sentences2000People v. Simpson , 272 Ill. 2000People v. Simpson, 272 Ill. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1980(People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 1 , 387 N.E.2d 331 ; People v. Mallett (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 388 , 259 N.E.2d 241 .) We decline to consider this issue as plain error under Supreme Court Rules 451(c) and 615(a) (Ill. 1980(People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 1 , 387 N.E.2d 331 ; People v. Mallett (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 388 , 259 N.E.2d 241 .) We decline to consider this issue as plain error under Supreme Court Rules 451(c) and 615(a) (Ill. | 2 | 1980–1994 |
People v. King
green
2 sentences1990This court, however, chooses to address this issue as plain error. (107 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).) After reviewing the record, we believe, like Ruben’s case, the defendant’s conduct constitutes one act as defined by People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551 , 363 N.E.2d 838 . 1990This court, however, chooses to address this issue as plain error. (107 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).) After reviewing the record, we believe, like Ruben’s case, the defendant’s conduct constitutes one act as defined by People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551 , 363 N.E.2d 838 . | 2 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Birge
green
1 sentence2026Id. ¶ 139 Therefore, we conclude that defendant has forfeited this contention and, in any event, agreed to the procedure the court ultimately adopted. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Guzman green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Faretta v. California green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Holman red | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Eppinger green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Trice green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Taylor green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Woods green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re J.C. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Kinnerson green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Denson green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Harding green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Salazar green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Wigman green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. DeSomer neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Watt green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Simms green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Lucy green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Ayala green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Yates green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Pickett green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Davis green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Lyles green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Fields green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Hooper green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Parham red | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Beller green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.