finding of plain error in Illinois

9 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Kaczmarekgreen ill · 2003 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Kaczmarek , 207 Ill. 2d at 302-03 (supreme court held that overwhelming evidence found in record that the defendant committed the murder in brutal and heinous manner showed that he could not demonstrate prejudice for purposes of plain error analysis); accord Crespo , 203 Ill. 2d at 348-49 (based on review of record showing overwhelming evidence of brutality and heinous behavior, supreme court held that "there is no basis for concluding that the Apprendi violation" would qualify for plain error analysis) . 2004See Kaczmarek, 207 Ill. 2d at 302-03 (supreme court held that overwhelming evidence found in record that the defendant committed the murder in brutal and heinous manner showed that he could not demonstrate prejudice for purposes of plain error analysis); accord Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d at 348-49 (based on review of record showing overwhelming evidence of brutality and heinous behavior, supreme court held that “there is no basis for concluding that the Apprendi violation” would qualify for plain error analysis).	2	2
People v. Crespogreen ill · 2003 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Kaczmarek , 207 Ill. 2d at 302-03 (supreme court held that overwhelming evidence found in record that the defendant committed the murder in brutal and heinous manner showed that he could not demonstrate prejudice for purposes of plain error analysis); accord Crespo , 203 Ill. 2d at 348-49 (based on review of record showing overwhelming evidence of brutality and heinous behavior, supreme court held that "there is no basis for concluding that the Apprendi violation" would qualify for plain error analysis) . 2004See Kaczmarek, 207 Ill. 2d at 302-03 (supreme court held that overwhelming evidence found in record that the defendant committed the murder in brutal and heinous manner showed that he could not demonstrate prejudice for purposes of plain error analysis); accord Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d at 348-49 (based on review of record showing overwhelming evidence of brutality and heinous behavior, supreme court held that “there is no basis for concluding that the Apprendi violation” would qualify for plain error analysis).	2	2
People v. Piatkowskigreen ill · 2007 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024Further, the State argues, any possible error did not prejudice defendant because the evidence against him was overwhelming and the alleged error was not so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial. ¶ 58 The plain error rule allows appellate review of unpreserved claims when either “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the de 2024To find plain error under the first prong, the court must determine “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant.” Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565 .	1	1
People v. Jacksongreen ill · 1981 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 2 sentences 1985See People v. Jackson (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 350 , 418 N.E.2d 739 . 1985See People v. Jackson (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 350 , 418 N.E.2d 739 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Smith green illappct · 1978 2 sentences 2018App. 3d 952 , 24 Ill.Dec. 566 , 385 N.E.2d 707 (1978), but we find the conclusion in Smith does not support a finding of plain error. ¶ 95 In Smith , during a suppression hearing, the prosecutor asked the defendant about the contents of a box recovered from the defendant's vehicle during a traffic stop. 2018App. 3d 952 , 24 Ill.Dec. 566 , 385 N.E.2d 707 (1978), but we find the conclusion in Smith does not support a finding of plain error. ¶ 95 In Smith , during a suppression hearing, the prosecutor asked the defendant about the contents of a box recovered from the defendant's vehicle during a traffic stop.	1	2018–2018
People v. Blue green ill · 2000 2 sentences 2004In People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99 , 724 N.E.2d 920 (2000), the court noted: “ ‘A criminal defendant, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a fair, orderly, and impartial trial’ conducted according to law.” Blue, 189 Ill. 2d at 138 , 724 N.E.2d at 941 , quoting People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 214 , 705 N.E.2d 824 (1998). 2004In People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99 , 724 N.E.2d 920 (2000), the court noted: “ ‘A criminal defendant, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a fair, orderly, and impartial trial’ conducted according to law.” Blue, 189 Ill. 2d at 138 , 724 N.E.2d at 941 , quoting People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 214 , 705 N.E.2d 824 (1998).	1	2004–2004
People v. Bull green ill · 1998 2 sentences 2004In People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99 , 724 N.E.2d 920 (2000), the court noted: “ ‘A criminal defendant, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a fair, orderly, and impartial trial’ conducted according to law.” Blue, 189 Ill. 2d at 138 , 724 N.E.2d at 941 , quoting People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 214 , 705 N.E.2d 824 (1998). 2004In People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99 , 724 N.E.2d 920 (2000), the court noted: “ ‘A criminal defendant, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a fair, orderly, and impartial trial’ conducted according to law.” Blue, 189 Ill. 2d at 138 , 724 N.E.2d at 941 , quoting People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 214 , 705 N.E.2d 824 (1998).	1	2004–2004
People v. Enoch green ill · 1988 1 sentence 1992(People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176 .) However, Supreme Court Rule 615(a) provides a limited exception to the waiver rule for plain error affecting substantial rights. (134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).) Two occasions provide the basis for a finding of plain error.	1	1992–1992
People v. Boclair green ill · 1989 2 sentences 1990People v. Boclair (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 458, 476 , 544 N.E.2d 715 ; People v. Lucas (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 245 , 430 N.E.2d 1091 . 1990People v. Boclair (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 458, 476 , 544 N.E.2d 715 ; People v. Lucas (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 245 , 430 N.E.2d 1091 .	1	1990–1990
People v. Lucas green ill · 1981 2 sentences 1990People v. Boclair (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 458, 476 , 544 N.E.2d 715 ; People v. Lucas (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 245 , 430 N.E.2d 1091 . 1990People v. Boclair (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 458, 476 , 544 N.E.2d 715 ; People v. Lucas (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 245 , 430 N.E.2d 1091 .	1	1990–1990
People v. Godsey green ill · 1978 2 sentences 1990(Godsey, 74 Ill. 2d 64 , 383 N.E.2d 988 ; People v. Sullivan (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 36, 44 , 377 N.E.2d 17 .) The proper standard of review for a finding of plain error is whether the evidence of defendant’s guilt is so closely balanced and the alleged errors of such magnitude that they denied the defendant a fair trial. 1990(Godsey, 74 Ill. 2d 64 , 383 N.E.2d 988 ; People v. Sullivan (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 36, 44 , 377 N.E.2d 17 .) The proper standard of review for a finding of plain error is whether the evidence of defendant’s guilt is so closely balanced and the alleged errors of such magnitude that they denied the defendant a fair trial.	1	1990–1990
People v. Sullivan green ill · 1978 2 sentences 1990(Godsey, 74 Ill. 2d 64 , 383 N.E.2d 988 ; People v. Sullivan (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 36, 44 , 377 N.E.2d 17 .) The proper standard of review for a finding of plain error is whether the evidence of defendant’s guilt is so closely balanced and the alleged errors of such magnitude that they denied the defendant a fair trial. 1990(Godsey, 74 Ill. 2d 64 , 383 N.E.2d 988 ; People v. Sullivan (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 36, 44 , 377 N.E.2d 17 .) The proper standard of review for a finding of plain error is whether the evidence of defendant’s guilt is so closely balanced and the alleged errors of such magnitude that they denied the defendant a fair trial.	1	1990–1990
People v. Struck neutral illappct · 1985 1 sentence 1987People v. Struck (1985), 136 Ill.	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

OH 104 (1987–2026) WY 34 (1984–2026) AL 26 (1987–2025) VT 17 (1990–2026) TN 16 (1999–2022) CO 15 (1984–2026) GA 14 (2014–2025) AK 14 (1981–2015) DC 12 (1978–2018) MS 12 (1999–2023) NC 11 (1994–2022) MO 10 (1986–2023) UT 10 (1989–2012) IL 9 (1985–2024) DE 6 (2020–2025) CT 4 (1986–2025) NJ 4 (1963–2024) OK 4 (1997–2022) NE 3 (2015–2024) OR 2 (2007–2011) MI 2 (2020–2022) NV 2 (1997–2026) MN 2 (2001–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check