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.
9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2023 5 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. Huntgreen2 sentences2023See People v. Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786, ¶ 52 (“The [purpose of the accomplice-witness instruction] is to warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.”). ¶ 46 Here, counsel thoroughly attacked Carpenter’s credibility during cross-examination and in closing argument. 2022Id. ¶ 47. ¶ 57 The purpose of IPI 3.17 is to “warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.” Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786, ¶ 52 . | 2 | 7 |
People v. Jordangreen2 sentences2020In People v. Jordan, 247 Ill. 2020In People v. Jordan, 247 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Doddgreen1 sentence2021Defendant relies on decisions like People v. Dodd, 173 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Huntgreen2 sentences2023See People v. Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786, ¶ 52 (“The [purpose of the accomplice-witness instruction] is to warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.”). ¶ 46 Here, counsel thoroughly attacked Carpenter’s credibility during cross-examination and in closing argument. 2022Id. ¶ 47. ¶ 57 The purpose of IPI 3.17 is to “warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.” Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786, ¶ 52 . | 1 | 7 |
People v. Fanegreen1 sentence2022But see Fane, 2021 IL 126715, ¶ 45 (noting that one of the purposes of the instruction is to caution the jury that the witness may be testifying falsely in exchange for favorable treatment from the State, but “it is equally plain that courts have looked askance at an accomplice’s testimony regardless of which party offers it and 12 1-21-0574 have upheld issuing the instruction when the witness gave exculpatory testimony for the defendant”). ¶ 58 The accomplice-witness instruction should be given “if the totality of the evidence and the reasonable inferences derived from the evidence establish | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Washington
green
2 sentences2020People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 At issue here, the accomplice-witness instruction (IPI Criminal No. 3.17) exists “to warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.” People v. Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786 , ¶ 52. 2020People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 At issue here, the accomplice-witness instruction (IPI Criminal No. 3.17) exists “to warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.” People v. Hunt, 2016 IL App (2d) 140786 , ¶ 52. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Quezada
green
1 sentence2022Here, the jury was acutely aware that Longmire’s testimony should be closely - 21 - 2022 IL App (2d) 200195 scrutinized. 3 Indeed, even in the absence of the accomplice-witness instruction, counsel impressed upon the jury that it should view Longmire’s testimony with heightened suspicion and warned of numerous circumstances that might motivate Longmire to provide false testimony. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Fane
green
2 sentences2021Defendant appealed. ¶ 27 The appellate court stated that IPI Criminal No. 3.17 existed “to warn the jury that the witness might have a strong motivation to provide false testimony for the State in exchange for immunity or some other lenient treatment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 2020 IL App (2d) 180151 , ¶ 33. 2021Given the relationship between such a witness and the State, the court noted that “there may be a strong motivation to testify falsely for the accomplice who seeks, hopes or expects lenient treatment by the State in return for favorable testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 28 The appellate court acknowledged that in Rivera, 166 Ill. 2d at 292 , this court upheld the trial court’s issuance of the accomplice witness instruction even though the witness had been called by the defendant. 2020 IL App (2d) 180151 , ¶ 34. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Rivera
green
1 sentence2021Given the relationship between such a witness and the State, the court noted that “there may be a strong motivation to testify falsely for the accomplice who seeks, hopes or expects lenient treatment by the State in return for favorable testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 28 The appellate court acknowledged that in Rivera, 166 Ill. 2d at 292 , this court upheld the trial court’s issuance of the accomplice witness instruction even though the witness had been called by the defendant. 2020 IL App (2d) 180151 , ¶ 34. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Davis
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 798 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |