Jackson formulation standard in Illinois

2011The State argues that we should follow the standard of review formulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), by determining the sufficiency of the evidence in supporting a conviction. ¶ 33 The United States Supreme Court held in Jackson that, when considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Jackson, 443 U.S. at

2005People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985).

2024“Sexual conduct” is defined as “any knowing touching or fondling by the victim or the accused, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, anus, or breast of the victim or accused ***.” Id. § 11-0.1. ¶ 118 As noted, when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the question is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also People v. Cunningham

2011The State argues that we should follow the standard of review formulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), by determining the sufficiency of the evidence in supporting a conviction. ¶ 33 The United States Supreme Court held in Jackson that, when considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Jackson, 443 U.S. at

2023See People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 278-79 (2004); People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 209 (2004).

2022See People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 278-79 (2004); People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 209 (2004).

2024“Sexual conduct” is defined as “any knowing touching or fondling by the victim or the accused, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, anus, or breast of the victim or accused ***.” Id. § 11-0.1. ¶ 118 As noted, when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the question is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also People v. Cunningham

2011The State argues that we should follow the standard of review formulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), by determining the sufficiency of the evidence in supporting a conviction. ¶ 33 The United States Supreme Court held in Jackson that, when considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Jackson, 443 U.S. at

2024“This standard of review ‘gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’ ” People v. McLaurin, 2020 IL 124563, ¶ 22 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 ).