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 1979–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tennantgreen2 sentences2012Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d at 273 , 307 Ill.Dec. 524 , 860 N.E.2d 178 ; see also Tennant, 65 Ill.2d at 404 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 (the witness at the preliminary hearing "had been cross-examined by counsel for defendant without limitation"). 2012Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d at 273 , 307 Ill.Dec. 524 , 860 N.E.2d 178 ; see also Tennant, 65 Ill.2d at 404 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 (the witness at the preliminary hearing "had been cross-examined by counsel for defendant without limitation"). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Boclairgreen2 sentences2012The State, quoting People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 476 , 136 Ill.Dec. 29 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989), submits that "[e]videntiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless the trial court has abused its discretion." Relying upon People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000) (citing People v. Williams, 188 Ill.2d 365, 369 , 242 Ill.Dec. 260 , 721 N.E.2d *928 539 (1999)), the defendant suggests, where, as here, admissibility turns on a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. 2012The State, quoting People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 476 , 136 Ill.Dec. 29 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989), submits that "[e]videntiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless the trial court has abused its discretion." Relying upon People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000) (citing People v. Williams, 188 Ill.2d 365, 369 , 242 Ill.Dec. 260 , 721 N.E.2d *928 539 (1999)), the defendant suggests, where, as here, admissibility turns on a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2012The State, quoting People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 476 , 136 Ill.Dec. 29 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989), submits that "[e]videntiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless the trial court has abused its discretion." Relying upon People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000) (citing People v. Williams, 188 Ill.2d 365, 369 , 242 Ill.Dec. 260 , 721 N.E.2d *928 539 (1999)), the defendant suggests, where, as here, admissibility turns on a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. 2012The State, quoting People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 476 , 136 Ill.Dec. 29 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989), submits that "[e]videntiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless the trial court has abused its discretion." Relying upon People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000) (citing People v. Williams, 188 Ill.2d 365, 369 , 242 Ill.Dec. 260 , 721 N.E.2d *928 539 (1999)), the defendant suggests, where, as here, admissibility turns on a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2012The State, quoting People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 476 , 136 Ill.Dec. 29 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989), submits that "[e]videntiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless the trial court has abused its discretion." Relying upon People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000) (citing People v. Williams, 188 Ill.2d 365, 369 , 242 Ill.Dec. 260 , 721 N.E.2d *928 539 (1999)), the defendant suggests, where, as here, admissibility turns on a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. 2012The State, quoting People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 476 , 136 Ill.Dec. 29 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989), submits that "[e]videntiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless the trial court has abused its discretion." Relying upon People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 21 , 252 Ill.Dec. 552 , 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000) (citing People v. Williams, 188 Ill.2d 365, 369 , 242 Ill.Dec. 260 , 721 N.E.2d *928 539 (1999)), the defendant suggests, where, as here, admissibility turns on a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Torresgreen1 sentence2026Contrast People v. Boston, 2018 IL App (1st) 140369, ¶ 60 (affirming admission of preliminary hearing testimony where there was “no indication in the record that the court placed any time constraints or other - 13 - No. 1-24-0238 limitations on counsel’s ability to cross-examine” and the circuit court sustained only one objection), with Torres, 2012 IL 111302, ¶ 64 (affirming barring of testimony where the circuit court’s comments indicated it “was not enthusiastic” about proceeding with the hearing and sustained two objections, explaining “it [was] clear from the record that counsel would hav | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bostongreen1 sentence2026Contrast People v. Boston, 2018 IL App (1st) 140369, ¶ 60 (affirming admission of preliminary hearing testimony where there was “no indication in the record that the court placed any time constraints or other - 13 - No. 1-24-0238 limitations on counsel’s ability to cross-examine” and the circuit court sustained only one objection), with Torres, 2012 IL 111302, ¶ 64 (affirming barring of testimony where the circuit court’s comments indicated it “was not enthusiastic” about proceeding with the hearing and sustained two objections, explaining “it [was] clear from the record that counsel would hav | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Starksgreen2 sentences2020But cf. id. ¶ 64 (opining that “it is clear from the record that counsel would have done more with the witness at the preliminary hearing if he had felt free to do so”). ¶ 64 Defendant cites Starks, 2012 IL App (2d) 110273 , wherein the defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault and other offenses. 2018But cf. id. ¶ 64 (opining that “it is clear from the record that counsel would have done more with the witness at the preliminary hearing if he had felt free to do so”). ¶ 64 Defendant cites Starks, 2012 IL App (2d) 110273 , wherein the defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault and other offenses. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sutherland
green
2 sentences2012Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d at 273 , 307 Ill.Dec. 524 , 860 N.E.2d 178 ; see also Tennant, 65 Ill.2d at 404 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 (the witness at the preliminary hearing "had been cross-examined by counsel for defendant without limitation"). 2012Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d at 273 , 307 Ill.Dec. 524 , 860 N.E.2d 178 ; see also Tennant, 65 Ill.2d at 404 , 3 Ill.Dec. 431 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 (the witness at the preliminary hearing "had been cross-examined by counsel for defendant without limitation"). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences1995(Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 73 , 65 L. 1995(Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 73 , 65 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Barber v. Page
green
1 sentence1995Ed. 2d at 258 , 88 S. Ct. at 1320 ; People v. Horton (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 413 , 358 N.E.2d 1121 ; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 401 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 .) Where there was an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing and defense counsel availed himself of that opportunity, the transcript bears sufficient indicia of reliability and affords the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Horton
green
2 sentences1995Ed. 2d at 258 , 88 S. Ct. at 1320 ; People v. Horton (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 413 , 358 N.E.2d 1121 ; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 401 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 .) Where there was an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing and defense counsel availed himself of that opportunity, the transcript bears sufficient indicia of reliability and affords the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement. 1995Ed. 2d at 258 , 88 S. Ct. at 1320 ; People v. Horton (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 413 , 358 N.E.2d 1121 ; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 401 , 358 N.E.2d 1116 .) Where there was an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing and defense counsel availed himself of that opportunity, the transcript bears sufficient indicia of reliability and affords the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Aldaco
neutral
1 sentence1991App. 3d 672, 676 , 437 N.E.2d 905 .) The party seeking admission of a witness’ prior testimony must satisfy a three-pronged test: (1) that the witness is dead or unavailable to testify; (2) that a reasonably diligent, good-faith effort to produce the witness has been made; and (3) that there has been an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. J.S.
neutral
1 sentence1991(In re J.S. (1987), 153 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Guyton
green
2 sentences1979(People v. Guyton, 53 Ill. 2d 114 , 290 N.E.2d 209 (1972); People v. Harrison.) The possible inability of a witness to describe in detail the facial characteristics and clothing of the accused and the presence of possible contradictory testimony are factors which the trier of fact must consider in determining the credibility of an identification witness. 1979(People v. Guyton, 53 Ill. 2d 114 , 290 N.E.2d 209 (1972); People v. Harrison.) The possible inability of a witness to describe in detail the facial characteristics and clothing of the accused and the presence of possible contradictory testimony are factors which the trier of fact must consider in determining the credibility of an identification witness. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence1979App. 3d 348 , 365 N.E.2d 907 (1st Dist. 1977).) Furthermore, minor discrepancies in the testimony of a witness at the preliminary hearing and at trial, such as whether or not defendant had a slight mustache at the time of the offense, will not render an identification of an accused invalid. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.