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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2013 0 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. Clarkgreen2 sentences1982(People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374 , 288 N.E.2d 363 .) The prior consistent statement exception applies if the statement is offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, and if the declarant told the same story before the motive came into evidence or before the time of the alleged fabrication. 1982(People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 374 , 288 N.E.2d 363 .) The prior consistent statement exception applies if the statement is offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, and if the declarant told the same story before the motive came into evidence or before the time of the alleged fabrication. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Powellgreen2 sentences1988People v. Powell (1973), 53 Ill. 2d 465 , 292 N.E.2d 409 ; People v. Andino (1981), 99 Ill. 1988People v. Powell (1973), 53 Ill. 2d 465 , 292 N.E.2d 409 ; People v. Andino (1981), 99 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Cuadradogreen1 sentence2013App. 3d 796 (2004) (acknowledging that the prior consistent statement rule provides for two separate exceptions). ¶ 31 More recently, our supreme court stated that “[a]n exception to this rule applies when it is suggested that the witness had recently fabricated the testimony or had a motive to testify falsely, and the prior statement was made before the motive to fabricate arose.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Cuadrado, 214 Ill. 2d 79, 90 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Antczakgreen2 sentences2013See People v. Antczak, 251 Ill. 2013See Clark, 52 Ill. 2d at 389 ; see also Williams, 147 Ill. 2d 173 ; Antczak, 251 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2013See Clark, 52 Ill. 2d at 389 ; see also Williams, 147 Ill. 2d 173 ; Antczak, 251 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Andino
green
2 sentences1988People v. Powell (1973), 53 Ill. 2d 465 , 292 N.E.2d 409 ; People v. Andino (1981), 99 Ill. 1982People v. Andino (1981), 99 Ill. | 2 | 1982–1988 |
People v. Heard
green
1 sentence2013In support of this version of the rule, our supreme court cited its decision in People v. Heard, 187 Ill. 2d 36 (1999), which stated a similar, truncated version of the exception. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Henderson
green
2 sentences1997In Henderson, our supreme court found that the admission of a statement acknowledging the existence of a prior consistent statement was error, but was not prejudicial, in part, because "no portion of [the witness’] statement to the police was admitted into evidence.” Henderson, 142 Ill. 2d at 312 . 1997In Henderson , our supreme court found that the admission of a statement acknowledging the existence of a prior consistent statement was error, but was not prejudicial, in part, because "no portion of [the witness'] statement to the police was admitted into evidence." Henderson, 142 Ill.2d at 312 , 154 Ill.Dec. 785 , 568 N.E.2d 1234 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Tidwell
green
1 sentence1988App. 3d 808 , 410 N.E.2d 1163 .) Consequently, the prior consistent statement exception does not apply here. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Rogers
red
1 sentence1984App. 3d 952, 956-57 ; People v. Rogers (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 571 .) Evidence of Moravek’s prior identification of defendant was not barred by the hearsay rule, and the prior consistent statement rule is not applicable. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence1984The State, relying on People v. Rodriguez (1978), 58 Ill. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Price
green
1 sentence1977App. 3d 972, 980-82 , 363 N.E.2d 429, 435-36 ) and the propriety of giving IPI Criminal No. 3.06 (Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.06 (1968)) relating to admissions by a defendant (see People v. Price (1975), 32 Ill. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. VanZile
green
2 sentences1977In view of our finding that defendant’s guilt of these offenses has not been proved by the appropriate quantum of evidence and that the convictions must be reversed, it is not necessary that we decide other assignments of error relating to the prior consistent statement exception to the hearsay rule (see People v. VanZile (1977), 48 Ill. 1977App. 3d 972, 980-82 , 363 N.E.2d 429, 435-36 ) and the propriety of giving IPI Criminal No. 3.06 (Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.06 (1968)) relating to admissions by a defendant (see People v. Price (1975), 32 Ill. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.