advantage of predicating error in Illinois

1982Enlightened trial practice does not permit counsel under the guise of trial strategy to sit idly by and permit instructions to be given the jury without specific objection and then be given the advantage of predicating error thereon by using the error for the first time in a post-trial motion.’ ” ( 72 Ill. 2d 124,129-30 .) Also, even though defendant did object to the foundation laid for the testimony that the post-hole digger was worth $500, the objection was overruled, defendant has not appealed that ruling, and the testimony of value was undisputed at trial.

1981(People v. Roberts.) As stated by the supreme court in People v. Underwood (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 124, 129 , 378 N.E.2d 513, 516 , “ ‘Enlightened trial practice does not permit counsel under the guise of trial strategy to sit idly by and permit instructions to be given the jury without specific objection and then be given the advantage of predicating error thereon e <* <* > »» However, in criminal cases the waiver rule will not prevent review of “substantial defects” in jury instructions if “the interests of justice require.” (Ill.

2021No reasonable excuse for the failure has been shown.” The given instruction was stated in general terms and did not explicitly refer to the missing dashcam videos or any other specific pieces of evidence. ¶ 120 “Enlightened trial practice does not permit counsel under the guise of trial strategy to sit idly by and permit instructions to be given the jury without specific objections and then be given the advantage of predicating error thereon by urging the error for the first time in a post-trial motion.” Doe v. Parrilo, 2020 IL App (1st) 191286 , ¶ 62 (internal quotations omitted).

1984See Delany v. Badame (1971), 49 Ill. 2d 168, 178 , 274 N.E.2d 353 ; Commissioners of Lincoln Park v. Schmidt (1941), 375 Ill. 474, 476-77 , 31 N.E.2d 969 ; Stephenson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co. (1981), 101 Ill.

1984See Delany v. Badame (1971), 49 Ill. 2d 168, 178 , 274 N.E.2d 353 ; Commissioners of Lincoln Park v. Schmidt (1941), 375 Ill. 474, 476-77 , 31 N.E.2d 969 ; Stephenson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co. (1981), 101 Ill.

1984See Delany v. Badame (1971), 49 Ill. 2d 168, 178 , 274 N.E.2d 353 ; Commissioners of Lincoln Park v. Schmidt (1941), 375 Ill. 474, 476-77 , 31 N.E.2d 969 ; Stephenson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co. (1981), 101 Ill.

1978Urging that this principle applies in the instant case, defendant relies for support on People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill. 2d 302 .

1961Onderisin v. Elgin, Joilet and Eastern Railway Co., 20 Ill App2d 73, 77-78.” In the Onderisin case the court had the same question before it and said: “Enlightened trial practice does not permit counsel under the guise of trial strategy to sit idly by and permit instructions to be given the jury without specific objection and then be given the advantage of predicating error thereon by urging the error for the first time in a post-trial motion.” See also Kotowsky v. Cook, 29 Ill App2d 116, 172 NE2d 502 ; Cross v. Blood, 22 Ill App2d 496, 161 NE2d 349 .

1961Onderisin v. Elgin, Joilet and Eastern Railway Co., 20 Ill App2d 73, 77-78.” In the Onderisin case the court had the same question before it and said: “Enlightened trial practice does not permit counsel under the guise of trial strategy to sit idly by and permit instructions to be given the jury without specific objection and then be given the advantage of predicating error thereon by urging the error for the first time in a post-trial motion.” See also Kotowsky v. Cook, 29 Ill App2d 116, 172 NE2d 502 ; Cross v. Blood, 22 Ill App2d 496, 161 NE2d 349 .