King doctrine in Illinois

2025The definition of an ‘act’ under the King doctrine remains simply what this court stated in King: ‘any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.’ ” People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 188 (1996) (quoting King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566 ). ¶ 24 Under either the multifactor test or the King test simplicitur, we conclude that the offenses of battery and reckless driving were carved from a single act.

2025The definition of an ‘act’ under the King doctrine remains simply what this court stated in King: ‘any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.’ ” People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 188 (1996) (quoting King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566 ). ¶ 24 Under either the multifactor test or the King test simplicitur, we conclude that the offenses of battery and reckless driving were carved from a single act.

2025The definition of an ‘act’ under the King doctrine remains simply what this court stated in King: ‘any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.’ ” People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 188 (1996) (quoting King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566 ). ¶ 24 Under either the multifactor test or the King test simplicitur, we conclude that the offenses of battery and reckless driving were carved from a single act.

2025The definition of an ‘act’ under the King doctrine remains simply what this court stated in King: ‘any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.’ ” People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 188 (1996) (quoting King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566 ). ¶ 24 Under either the multifactor test or the King test simplicitur, we conclude that the offenses of battery and reckless driving were carved from a single act.

2023Although “the King doctrine [is] the guiding principle” on what constitutes an act, our supreme court has “acknowledge[d] the utility of the six-factor test [of Baity] in many instances.” People v. Sienkiewicz, 208 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2003). ¶ 17 A. Single Act or Multiple Acts ¶ 18 Based on the principles of the one-act, one-crime doctrine, defendant argues that his convictions for creation of child pornography (count I) and possession of child pornography (count -7- No. 1-21-1078 IV) arose out of the same physical act of using his cell phone to record an instance of sexual conduct with E.K. in her

2023Although “the King doctrine [is] the guiding principle” on what constitutes an act, our supreme court has “acknowledge[d] the utility of the six-factor test [of Baity] in many instances.” People v. Sienkiewicz, 208 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2003). ¶ 17 A. Single Act or Multiple Acts ¶ 18 Based on the principles of the one-act, one-crime doctrine, defendant argues that his convictions for creation of child pornography (count I) and possession of child pornography (count -7- No. 1-21-1078 IV) arose out of the same physical act of using his cell phone to record an instance of sexual conduct with E.K. in her

2018The court reminded that "a defendant can be convicted of two offenses even when they share a common act, as long as there is an additional act that can support a separate offense." Coats , 2018 IL 121926 , ¶ 26, --- Ill.Dec. ----, --- N.E.3d ---- (citing Rodriguez , 169 Ill. 2d at 189 , 214 Ill.Dec. 451 , 661 N.E.2d 305 ). ¶ 81 Because defendant's possession of a handgun and his possession of drugs were separate acts, there is no violation under the first step of the King doctrine.

2018The court reminded that "a defendant can be convicted of two offenses even when they share a common act, as long as there is an additional act that can support a separate offense." Coats , 2018 IL 121926 , ¶ 26, --- Ill.Dec. ----, --- N.E.3d ---- (citing Rodriguez , 169 Ill. 2d at 189 , 214 Ill.Dec. 451 , 661 N.E.2d 305 ). ¶ 81 Because defendant's possession of a handgun and his possession of drugs were separate acts, there is no violation under the first step of the King doctrine.

2005In reviewing the one-act, one-crime rule, this court has stated, in part, as follows: "[T]he King doctrine provides that a defendant's conduct cannot result in multiple convictions if the convictions are based on precisely the same physical act and any of the offenses are included offenses." People v. White , 311 Ill.

2005In reviewing the one-act, one-crime rule, this court has stated, in part, as follows: “[T]he King doctrine provides that a defendant’s conduct cannot result in multiple convictions if the convictions are based on precisely the same physical act and any of the offenses are included offenses.” People v. White, 311 Ill.

1996The definition of an "act” under the King doctrine remains simply what this court stated in King: "any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.” King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566 ; see People v. Dixon (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 346, 355-56 ; People v. Partee (1987), 157 Ill.

1996The definition of an "act” under the King doctrine remains simply what this court stated in King: "any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.” King, 66 Ill. 2d at 566 ; see People v. Dixon (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 346, 355-56 ; People v. Partee (1987), 157 Ill.

2012As we have noted, under the King rule, "multiple convictions are prohibited where the offenses are carved from the same physical act or where, with regard to multiple acts, one of the offenses is a lesser included offense of the other." People v. Bouchee, 2011 IL App (2d) 090542, ¶ 6 , 356 Ill.Dec. 671 , 962 N.E.2d 15 (citing King, 66 Ill.2d at 566 , 6 Ill.Dec. 891 , 363 N.E.2d 838 ).

2012As we have noted, under the King rule, "multiple convictions are prohibited where the offenses are carved from the same physical act or where, with regard to multiple acts, one of the offenses is a lesser included offense of the other." People v. Bouchee, 2011 IL App (2d) 090542, ¶ 6 , 356 Ill.Dec. 671 , 962 N.E.2d 15 (citing King, 66 Ill.2d at 566 , 6 Ill.Dec. 891 , 363 N.E.2d 838 ).

2011Rodriguez, 169 Ill.2d at 186 , 214 Ill.Dec. 451 , 661 N.E.2d at 306 . ¶ 27 In People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill.2d 58, 106 , 234 Ill.Dec. 399 , 703 N.E.2d 11, 34 (1998), the supreme court found the offenses of home invasion and residential burglary had been carved from the same physical act of the defendant's entering the dwelling of the victim and vacated the residential-burglary conviction and sentence at the first step of the King analysis.

2011Rodriguez, 169 Ill.2d at 186 , 214 Ill.Dec. 451 , 661 N.E.2d at 306 . ¶ 27 In People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill.2d 58, 106 , 234 Ill.Dec. 399 , 703 N.E.2d 11, 34 (1998), the supreme court found the offenses of home invasion and residential burglary had been carved from the same physical act of the defendant's entering the dwelling of the victim and vacated the residential-burglary conviction and sentence at the first step of the King analysis.

2002See People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 186 , 661 N.E.2d 305, 306 (1996) (“[mjultiple convictions are improper if they are based on precisely the same physical act”); People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335, 340-42 (2001) (applying the King rule to separate counts charging defendant with offenses arising out of the same conduct under different theories of culpability).

2002See People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 186 , 661 N.E.2d 305, 306 (1996) (“[mjultiple convictions are improper if they are based on precisely the same physical act”); People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335, 340-42 (2001) (applying the King rule to separate counts charging defendant with offenses arising out of the same conduct under different theories of culpability).