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 2017–2023 2 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. Sebbygreen2 sentences2019See People v. Montgomery , 2018 IL App (2d) 160541 , ¶ 32, 427 Ill.Dec. 472 , 118 N.E.3d 673 (where the State provided ample and unrefuted evidence of a defendant's guilt, the evidence was not closely balanced merely because the defendant identified certain weaknesses in the State's case). ¶ 47 Under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine, we must determine "whether the defendant has shown that the error was so serious it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process." Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 50, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 . "[O]nly an e 2019See People v. Montgomery , 2018 IL App (2d) 160541 , ¶ 32, 427 Ill.Dec. 472 , 118 N.E.3d 673 (where the State provided ample and unrefuted evidence of a defendant's guilt, the evidence was not closely balanced merely because the defendant identified certain weaknesses in the State's case). ¶ 47 Under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine, we must determine "whether the defendant has shown that the error was so serious it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process." Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 50, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 . "[O]nly an e | 2 | 2 |
People v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2019See People v. Montgomery , 2018 IL App (2d) 160541 , ¶ 32, 427 Ill.Dec. 472 , 118 N.E.3d 673 (where the State provided ample and unrefuted evidence of a defendant's guilt, the evidence was not closely balanced merely because the defendant identified certain weaknesses in the State's case). ¶ 47 Under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine, we must determine "whether the defendant has shown that the error was so serious it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process." Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 50, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 . "[O]nly an e 2019See People v. Montgomery , 2018 IL App (2d) 160541 , ¶ 32, 427 Ill.Dec. 472 , 118 N.E.3d 673 (where the State provided ample and unrefuted evidence of a defendant's guilt, the evidence was not closely balanced merely because the defendant identified certain weaknesses in the State's case). ¶ 47 Under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine, we must determine "whether the defendant has shown that the error was so serious it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process." Sebby , 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 50, 417 Ill.Dec. 756 , 89 N.E.3d 675 . "[O]nly an e | 2 | 2 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2017This does not mean that second-prong plain error is restricted to “the [six] types of structural error that have been recognized by the [United States] Supreme Court” (id.), but it does mean that the error nevertheless must be of a similar kind: an error “ ‘affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself’ ” (Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991))). 2017This does not mean that -7- second-prong plain error is restricted to “the [six] types of structural error that have been recognized by the [United States] Supreme Court” (id.), but it does mean that the error nevertheless must be of a similar kind: an error “ ‘affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself’ ” (Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991))). | 2 | 2 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017This does not mean that second-prong plain error is restricted to “the [six] types of structural error that have been recognized by the [United States] Supreme Court” (id.), but it does mean that the error nevertheless must be of a similar kind: an error “ ‘affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself’ ” (Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991))). 2017This does not mean that -7- second-prong plain error is restricted to “the [six] types of structural error that have been recognized by the [United States] Supreme Court” (id.), but it does mean that the error nevertheless must be of a similar kind: an error “ ‘affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself’ ” (Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991))). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen1 sentence2021See People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007). “[O]nly an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding ‘unfair’ ” for purposes of the second prong. | 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. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023A sentencing error is reviewable under the second prong of the plain error doctrine if it is “so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . “[O]nly an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding ‘unfair.’ ” People v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 , ¶ 51. 2019People v. Johnson , 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 , ¶ 51, 414 Ill.Dec. 381 , 80 N.E.3d 114 . | 5 | 2018–2023 |
People v. Hillier
green
2 sentences2023A sentencing error is reviewable under the second prong of the plain error doctrine if it is “so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 . “[O]nly an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding ‘unfair.’ ” People v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 , ¶ 51. 2017Although that prong applies where an error denied a defendant “a fair sentencing hearing” (Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 ), it is crucial to recognize that, for these purposes, only an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding “unfair.” Indeed, the supreme court has “equated second-prong plain error with structural error.” (Emphasis - 12 - 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 added.) People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 46. | 3 | 2017–2023 |
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences2017Although that prong applies where an error denied a defendant “a fair sentencing hearing” (Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 ), it is crucial to recognize that, for these purposes, only an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding “unfair.” Indeed, the supreme court has “equated second-prong plain error with structural error.” (Emphasis - 12 - 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 added.) People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 46. 2017Although that prong applies where an error denied a defendant “a fair sentencing hearing” (Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 ), it is crucial to recognize that, for these purposes, only an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding “unfair.” Indeed, the supreme court has “equated second-prong plain error with structural error.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 46. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence2017Although that prong applies where an error denied a defendant “a fair sentencing hearing” (Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 ), it is crucial to recognize that, for these purposes, only an extraordinarily serious error will render a proceeding “unfair.” Indeed, the supreme court has “equated second-prong plain error with structural error.” (Emphasis - 12 - 2017 IL App (2d) 141241 added.) People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 46. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.