position claim in Illinois

2026We disagree. ¶ 68 As an initial matter, we agree with the State that any alleged error was invited. “ ‘[W]here, as here, a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.’ ” People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001) (quoting People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989)).

2025Where a party “acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.” People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989). - 22 - No. 1-23-1726 ¶ 82 Moreover, the trial court instructed the parties to notify the court if issues arise “regarding evidence that may be coming in against” the codefendants during the trial.

2026We disagree. ¶ 68 As an initial matter, we agree with the State that any alleged error was invited. “ ‘[W]here, as here, a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.’ ” People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001) (quoting People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989)).

2025“It is well established that, where a party acquiesces in proceeding in a particular manner, ‘he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.’ ” People v. Hernandez-Chirinos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230125, ¶ 76 (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001)).

2019In contrast, in People v. Hudson , 157 Ill. 2d 401 , 441, 193 Ill.Dec. 128 , 626 N.E.2d 161 (1993), our supreme court suggested that the trial court is in a better position to rule on objections during closing argument, and review is therefore for an abuse of discretion.

2019In contrast, in People v. Hudson , 157 Ill. 2d 401 , 441, 193 Ill.Dec. 128 , 626 N.E.2d 161 (1993), our supreme court suggested that the trial court is in a better position to rule on objections during closing argument, and review is therefore for an abuse of discretion.

2006App. 3d 207, 217 (1992) (A[w]here a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby@); People v. George, 263 Ill.

2006App. 3d 207, 217 (1992) (“[w]here a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby”); People v. George, 263 Ill.

1993Regarding the necessity of securing a ruling on a motion, the supreme court stated: "As we have recently noted, and hope to soon impress upon practitioners within this State, a movant has the responsibility to obtain a ruling on his motion if he wishes to raise a question pertaining thereto on appeal, and where a party, as here, acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby [citation].” People v. Neal (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 140, 151-52 , 568 N.E.2d 808 , cert. denied (1991), 502 U.S. 943 , 116 L.

1993Regarding the necessity of securing a ruling on a motion, the supreme court stated: "As we have recently noted, and hope to soon impress upon practitioners within this State, a movant has the responsibility to obtain a ruling on his motion if he wishes to raise a question pertaining thereto on appeal, and where a party, as here, acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby [citation].” People v. Neal (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 140, 151-52 , 568 N.E.2d 808 , cert. denied (1991), 502 U.S. 943 , 116 L.

2024See People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332 (2005) (“[W]hen a defendant procures, invites, or acquiesces in the admission of evidence, even though the evidence is - 18 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230136-U improper, she cannot contest the admission on appeal.”); People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989) (“[W]here, as here, a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.”); People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶ 54 (defense counsel invited error by affirmatively answering that he had no objection to the admission of the State’s exh

2022Stated another way, “when a defendant procures, invites, or acquiesces in the admission of evidence, even though the evidence is improper, [he] cannot contest the admission on appeal.” People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332 (2005); see also People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989) (“[W]here *** a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim that he was prejudiced thereby.”).

2008See Bandemer, 204 Ill.

2008See Bandemer, 204 Ill.

2007Ed. 2d 513, 519 , 101 S. Ct. 549, 553 (1981) ("Assuming, for purposes of argument, that personal notice is relevant, appellee is hardly in a position to claim surprise at the 1976 amendments to the minimum tax.

2007Ed. 2d 513, 519 , 101 S. Ct. 549, 553 (1981) (“Assuming, for purposes of argument, that personal notice is relevant, appellee is hardly in a position to claim surprise at the 1976 amendments to the minimum tax.

2003App. 3d 207, 217 (1992) (“Where a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby”); cf. People v. Hicks, 101 Ill. 2d 366, 374 (1984) (although statute required statement of reasons for sentence, defendant waived requirement by failing to request statement).

2003App. 3d 207, 217 (1992) ("Where a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby"); cf. People v. Hicks , 101 Ill. 2d 366, 374 (1984) (although statute required statement of reasons for sentence, defendant waived requirement by failing to request statement).

2003See People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill.2d 209, 227 , 260 Ill.Dec. 619 , 761 N.E.2d 1175 (2001) (where a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, the party is not in a position to claim prejudice thereby), quoting People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill.2d 128, 137 , 137 Ill.Dec. 12 , 545 N.E.2d 665 (1989); Parks v. Kownacki, 193 Ill.2d 164, 180 , 249 Ill.Dec. 897 , 737 N.E.2d 287 (2000) ("Questions not raised in the trial court cannot be argued for the first time on appeal").

2003See People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001) (where a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, the party is not in a position to claim prejudice thereby), quoting People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989); Parks v. Kownacki, 193 Ill. 2d 164, 180 (2000) (“Questions not raised in the trial court cannot be argued for the first time on appeal”).

2001Accord People v. Heard , 187 Ill. 2d 36, 81 (1999); People v. Neal , 142 Ill. 2d 140, 151-52 (1990); People v. McKinney , 260 Ill.

2001Accord People v. Heard, 187 Ill. 2d 36, 81 (1999); People v. Neal, 142 Ill. 2d 140, 151-52 (1990); People v. McKinney, 260 Ill.

2001Accord People v. Heard , 187 Ill. 2d 36, 81 (1999); People v. Neal , 142 Ill. 2d 140, 151-52 (1990); People v. McKinney , 260 Ill.

2001Accord People v. Heard, 187 Ill. 2d 36, 81 (1999); People v. Neal, 142 Ill. 2d 140, 151-52 (1990); People v. McKinney, 260 Ill.

1994III The trial court properly allowed defendant the option of declaring a mistrial, and it was not error for the court to accede to defendant’s request to continue with the proceedings. "[A]n accused may not ask the trial court to proceed in a certain manner and then contend in a court of review that the order which he obtained was in error.” (People v. Lowe (1992), 153 Ill. 2d 195, 199 , 606 N.E.2d 1167 .) "Where a party, as here, acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.” (People v. Jackson (1991), 145 Ill. 2d 43, 94 , 582 N.E.2d 1

1994III The trial court properly allowed defendant the option of declaring a mistrial, and it was not error for the court to accede to defendant’s request to continue with the proceedings. "[A]n accused may not ask the trial court to proceed in a certain manner and then contend in a court of review that the order which he obtained was in error.” (People v. Lowe (1992), 153 Ill. 2d 195, 199 , 606 N.E.2d 1167 .) "Where a party, as here, acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.” (People v. Jackson (1991), 145 Ill. 2d 43, 94 , 582 N.E.2d 1

2026“Active participation in the direction of proceedings, as in this case, goes beyond mere waiver.” Id. “[I]t is well established that ‘an accused may not ask the trial court to proceed in a certain manner and then contend in a court of review that the order which he 23 obtained was in error.’ ” People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill. 2d 228, 241 (2000) (quoting People v. Lowe, 153 Ill. 2d 195, 199 (1992)).

2025“It is well established that, where a party acquiesces in proceeding in a particular manner, ‘he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.’ ” People v. Hernandez-Chirinos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230125, ¶ 76 (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001)).

2024See People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332 (2005) (“[W]hen a defendant procures, invites, or acquiesces in the admission of evidence, even though the evidence is - 18 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230136-U improper, she cannot contest the admission on appeal.”); People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989) (“[W]here, as here, a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.”); People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶ 54 (defense counsel invited error by affirmatively answering that he had no objection to the admission of the State’s exh

2024See People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332 (2005) (“[W]hen a defendant procures, invites, or acquiesces in the admission of evidence, even though the evidence is - 18 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230136-U improper, she cannot contest the admission on appeal.”); People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989) (“[W]here, as here, a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.”); People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶ 54 (defense counsel invited error by affirmatively answering that he had no objection to the admission of the State’s exh

2024Powell v. Dean Foods Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 082513-B , ¶ 119 (citing Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483, 505 (2002)).

2023State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Martin, 186 Ill. 2d 367, 373 (1999).

2023It is well settled that declaratory relief is available where a case presents “a concrete dispute admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the parties’ rights, the resolution of which will aid in the termination of the controversy or some part thereof.” Underground Contractors Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 66 Ill. 2d 371, 375 (1977). 10 ¶ 24 An insurer taking the position that a claim against its insured is not covered by the policy has the right to seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage.

2020“Where a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, ‘he is not in a position to claim he was prejudiced thereby.’” People v. Hollahan, 2019 IL App (3d) 150556, ¶ 17 (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001)). ¶ 70 In any event, we recognize that receipt of three jury notes during a three-week trial might be uncommon.