method inquiry in Illinois

2022July 1, 2012) (“The court’s method of inquiry shall provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principles set out in this section.” (emphasis added)); see also Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 607 (“The rule requires an opportunity for a response from each prospective juror on their understanding and acceptance of those principles.” (emphasis added)). ¶ 25 As the trial court complied with Rule 431(b), there has been no error.

2021The text of the rule then enumerates each of those principles: “(1) that the defendant is presumed innocent of the charge(s) against him or her; (2) that before a defendant can be convicted the State must prove the defendant - 18 - guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) that the defendant is not required to offer any evidence on his or her own behalf; and (4) that if a defendant does not testify it cannot be held against him or her; however, no inquiry of a prospective juror shall be made into the defendant’s decision not to testify when the defendant objects.” Id. ¶ 68 Additionally, Rule 431(b

2022Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 20 ; Board of Education of Community School District No. 1, Coles County v. Compton, 123 Ill. 2d 216, 225-26 , 526 N.E.2d 149, 154 (1988). ¶ 24 B.

2022Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 20 ; Board of Education of Community School District No. 1, Coles County v. Compton, 123 Ill. 2d 216, 225-26 , 526 N.E.2d 149, 154 (1988). ¶ 24 B.

2014See People v. Van De Rostyne, 63 Ill. 2d 364, 366 (1976) (the method to challenge the constitutionality of a defendant’s arrest is through a motion to quash and suppress evidence). ¶ 50 The parties raise several concluding matters.

2014See People v. Van De Rostyne, 63 Ill. 2d 364, 366 (1976) (the method to challenge the constitutionality of a defendant's arrest is through a motion to quash and suppress evidence). ¶ 50 The parties raise several concluding matters.

2022“The court’s method of inquiry shall provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principles set out in this section.” (Emphasis added.) The single “Committee Comment” that follows the statement of the rule reinforces its actual focus, observing: “The new language is intended to ensure compliance with the requirements of People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984).

2021The court's method of inquiry shall provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principles set out in this section.” Id. ¶ 91 These are Zehr admonitions and inquiries, so named after People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (1984).

2026“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 57 A trial court’s method of inquiry at a preliminary Krankel proceeding is flexible.

2025“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 80 A trial court’s method of inquiry at a preliminary Krankel proceeding is flexible.

2026“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 57 A trial court’s method of inquiry at a preliminary Krankel proceeding is flexible.

2025“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 80 A trial court’s method of inquiry at a preliminary Krankel proceeding is flexible.

2016See Board of Education of Community School District No. 1, Coles County v. Compton, 123 Ill. 2d 216, 225-26 (1988); Niles Township High School District 219 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 379 Ill.

2015See Board of Education of Community School District No. 1, Coles County v. Compton, 123 Ill. 2d 216, 225-26 (1988); Niles Township High School District 219 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 379 Ill.

2011See People v. Yusuf, 409 Ill.App.3d 435, 438 , 351 Ill.Dec. 39 , 949 N.E.2d 1134 (2011) ("This court reviews de novo a trial court's compliance with a supreme court rule."). ¶ 38 2.

2011See People v. Yusuf, 409 Ill.App.3d 435, 438 , 351 Ill.Dec. 39 , 949 N.E.2d 1134 (2011) ("This court reviews de novo a trial court's compliance with a supreme court rule."). ¶ 38 2.

2010See Glasper, 234 Ill.2d at 189 , 334 Ill.Dec. 575 , 917 N.E.2d *835 401 ("[t]he trial court committed error when it ignored our long-standing precedent and our rules by refusing to question the venire in accordance with Rule 431(b)(4)"); People v. Magallanes, 397 Ill.

2010See Glasper, 234 Ill.2d at 189 , 334 Ill.Dec. 575 , 917 N.E.2d *835 401 ("[t]he trial court committed error when it ignored our long-standing precedent and our rules by refusing to question the venire in accordance with Rule 431(b)(4)"); People v. Magallanes, 397 Ill.

2010See People v. Yusuf, 399 Ill.App.3d 817, 819-21 , 340 Ill.Dec. 424 , 928 N.E.2d 143, 146-47 (2010). 2.

2010See People v. Yusuf, 399 Ill.App.3d 817, 819-21 , 340 Ill.Dec. 424 , 928 N.E.2d 143, 146-47 (2010). 2.

2003See 725 ILCS 5/114--12 (West 2000) ; People v. Moore , 307 Ill.

2003See 725 ILCS 5/114 — 12 (West 2000); People v. Moore, 307 Ill.

2020See Willhite, 399 Ill.

2020In People v. Willhite, 399 Ill.

2019See People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 26 . ¶ 37 Rule 431(b) provides that: “The court shall ask each potential juror, individually or in a group, whether that juror understands and accepts the following principles: (1) that the defendant is presumed innocent of the charge(s) against him or her; (2) that before a defendant can be convicted the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) that the defendant is not required to offer any evidence on his or her own behalf; and (4) that if a defendant does not testify it cannot be held against him or her; however, no in

2019The court’s method of inquiry shall provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principles set out in this section.” ¶ 10 In People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 28 , the circuit court explained the Rule 431(b) principles to the venire, then inquired whether any member “ ‘disagree[d] with this fundamental principle of law?’ ” The supreme court found that question insufficient under Rule 431(b), writing: “While it may be arguable that the court’s asking for disagreement, and getting none, is equivalent to juror acceptance of the principles, the trial cou

2023If a substantial showing of a constitutional violation is established, "the petition proceeds to the third stage for an evidentiary hearing." People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115, 126 , (2007). ¶ 37 “The * * * Act provides a method to challenge a conviction or sentence based on a substantial violation of constitutional rights.” People v. Boykins, 2017 IL 121365, ¶ 9 (citing 725 ILCS 5/122-1(a)(1) (West 2018)).

2020The circuit court noted that this court’s order on direct appeal highlighted the trial court’s conclusion that “no reasonable person” could believe that V.S. was 17 years old “regardless of whether [defendant] believed it or not.” The circuit court then dismissed the petition, finding that the “issues were raised and ruled on by the Appellate Court.” On its half- sheet, the circuit court noted that the “issues were raised [and] ruled on by the Appellate Court *** and no new issues have been raised.” ¶ 38 On appeal, defendant initially contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his pos

2009May 1, 2007. “ ‘The supreme court rules are not merely suggestions to be complied with if convenient but rather obligations which the parties and the courts are required to follow.’ ” People v. Reed, 376 Ill.

2009May 1, 2007. "`The supreme court rules are not merely suggestions to be complied with if convenient but rather obligations which the parties and the courts are required to follow.'" People v. Reed, 376 Ill.App.3d 121, 125 , 314 Ill.Dec. 657 , 875 N.E.2d 167, 171 (2007), quoting Medow v. Flavin, 336 Ill.App.3d 20, 36 , 270 Ill.Dec. 174 , 782 N.E.2d 733, 746-47 (2002).

2002McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 533 , 29 L.

2002McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 533 , 29 L.