Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2020 0 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. McLauringreen2 sentences2020Under the plain-error doctrine, however, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved and otherwise forfeited error “(1) where the evidence in the case is so closely balanced that the jury’s guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the evidence[ ] or (2) where the error is so serious that the defendant was denied a substantial right[ ] and thus a fair trial.” People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 489 (2009). 2020We disagree, and for reasons stated below, we decline to review this issue for plain error. ¶ 24 Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved and otherwise forfeited error “(1) where the evidence in the case is so closely balanced that the jury’s guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the evidence[ ] or (2) where the error is so serious that the defendant was denied a substantial right[ ] and thus a fair trial.” People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 489 (2009). | 5 | 6 |
People v. Herrongreen2 sentences2011The plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an unpreserved and otherwise forfeited error when “(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error[;] or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005). 2011The plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an unpreserved and otherwise forfeited error when “(1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error[;] or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Willhitegreen1 sentence2010Under the plain-error doctrine, however, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved and otherwise forfeited error “(1) where the evidence in the case is so closely balanced that the jury’s guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the evidencef ] or (2) where the error is so serious that the defendant was denied a substantial right[ ] and thus a fair trial.” People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 489 , 922 N.E.2d 344, 351 (2009). “[Bjefore we consider application of the plain-error doctrine to the case at bar, we must determine whether the trial court erred in its application of | 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. Morgan
green
1 sentence2020Our supreme court has “emphasized that the term ‘waiver,’ as used in cases regarding [Illinois] Supreme Court Rule 615(a) [citation] concerning plain error, has nothing to do with the voluntary relinquishment of known rights.” Morgan, 385 Ill. | 1 | 2020–2020 |