sustained defense in Illinois

2005While sustaining an objection also generally cures any prejudicial impact (Branum, 289 Ill.

2005While sustaining an objection also generally cures any prejudicial impact ( Branum, 289 Ill.App.3d at 959 , 225 Ill.Dec. 88 , 682 N.E.2d 1165 ), we find that a curative instruction enhances the curative effect.

2001Lucas, 132 Ill. 2d at 433 .

2001Lucas, 132 Ill.2d at 433 , 139 Ill.Dec. 447 , 548 N.E.2d 1003 .

1993(See People v. Henderson (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 258, 326 .) Therefore, where defendant has not shown that the remarks of the prosecutor were so prejudicial and improper that they could not be cured by an admonition to the jury, no grounds exist upon which to vacate his sentence.

1993Although the comment was improper, bearing no relevance to defendant Gray’s guilt or innocence, its impropriety does not automatically trigger reversible error. “[C]omments constitute reversible error only when they engender substantial prejudice against a defendant (see, e.g., People v. Tiller (1982), 94 Ill. 2d 303, 321 ), such that it is impossible to say whether or not a verdict of guilt resulted from those comments.” (People v. Henderson (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 258, 323 .) We believe that the trial court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection and its admonition to the jury, “[n]either op

1980(People v. Farmer (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 521 , 192 N.E.2d 916 ; People v. White.) We cannot say that the jury was unduly influenced or misled in light of the action taken by the court to cure the error.

1971People v. Farmer, 28 Ill.2d 521 (1963).” “The Court sustained defense objection to the prosecutor’s remark concerning the reasonableness of defendants’ alibi.

2025Id. ¶ 35 Moreover, in People v. Zernel, 259 Ill.

2022Id. at 625-26 .

2020People v. Wooden, 2014 IL App (1st) 130907, ¶ 10 . ¶ 93 In this instance, the State’s argument was not based on the evidence because Mr. Murry did not testify that defendant whispered as he walked past as the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection to the State’s question seeking to elicit this testimony.

2019People v. James, 2017 IL App (1st) 143036, ¶ 52 . ¶ 44 Defendant also claims the State improperly remarked that defendant was “saying go finish the job” and “go get him.” The trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection and admonished the jury multiple times that closing arguments were not evidence and should be disregarded to the extent not supported by the evidence.

2015The State explained that it wanted to question Barnett about her “faith.” However, after the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection to its question regarding whether Barnett’s church was of a “particular religion,” it did not believe -8- 2015 IL App (2d) 120717 that it could ask that question.

1995The proper scope of cross-examination is determined by the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed unless the trial court abused its discretion. ( Leonardi v. Loyola University (1993), 262 Ill.App.3d 411 , 199 Ill.Dec. 13 , 633 N.E.2d 809 .) We find that the trial court erroneously ruled that plaintiff's question was beyond the scope of the direct examination since the question went to the very issue of what the witness saw just prior to the collision.

1995The proper scope of cross-examination is determined by the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed unless the trial court abused its discretion. ( Leonardi v. Loyola University (1993), 262 Ill.App.3d 411 , 199 Ill.Dec. 13 , 633 N.E.2d 809 .) We find that the trial court erroneously ruled that plaintiff's question was beyond the scope of the direct examination since the question went to the very issue of what the witness saw just prior to the collision.

1994Improper comments generally do not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has been substantially prejudiced thereby (People v. Baptist (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 19 , 389 N.E.2d 1200 ), and although the prejudicial effect of an improper argument cannot be erased from the minds of jurors by an admonishment from the court (People v. Garreau (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 388, 391 , 189 N.E.2d 287 ), the act of properly sustaining an objection and instructing the jury to disregard such argument has usually been viewed as sufficient to cure any prejudice.

1994Improper comments generally do not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has been substantially prejudiced thereby (People v. Baptist (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 19 , 389 N.E.2d 1200 ), and although the prejudicial effect of an improper argument cannot be erased from the minds of jurors by an admonishment from the court (People v. Garreau (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 388, 391 , 189 N.E.2d 287 ), the act of properly sustaining an objection and instructing the jury to disregard such argument has usually been viewed as sufficient to cure any prejudice.

1993(See People v. Page (1993), 156 Ill. 2d 258, 276 .) Therefore, we find that the prosecutor’s remarks in his closing argument at the aggravation and mitigation phase did not deny defendant a fair sentencing hearing.

1993App. 3d 550 , 581 N.E.2d 118 ) and was cured when the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection and subsequently" instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel did not constitute evidence.