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 2 courts 2010–2025 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. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2017People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 , 870 N.E.2d 403, 411 (2007). “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Id. at 5 2017People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 , 870 N.E.2d 403, 411 (2007). “[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Id. at 5 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Blairgreen2 sentences2010People v. Blair, 395 Ill. 2010People v. Blair, 395 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Keenegreen1 sentence2025See generally People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 17 (1995) (“to determine whether a purported error is ‘plain’ requires a substantive look at it”). ¶ 43 As to that question, we find the trial court committed clear or obvious error when it proceeded to the defense’s case without first deciding defendant’s midtrial motion for a directed verdict. | 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. Thompson
green
2 sentences2011Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 . 2011Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Marcos
green
1 sentence2018“The first step in a plain-error analysis is to determine whether a clear and obvious error occurred. [Citation.] If a clear and obvious error occurred, we then consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine has been satisfied.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Henderson, 2017 IL App (3d) 150550, ¶ 37 . “[The] [d]efendant bears the burden of persuasion in showing both that a clear and obvious error exists and that one of the prongs is satisfied.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Marcos, 2013 IL App (1st) 111040, ¶ 58 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2018“The first step in a plain-error analysis is to determine whether a clear and obvious error occurred. [Citation.] If a clear and obvious error occurred, we then consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine has been satisfied.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Henderson, 2017 IL App (3d) 150550, ¶ 37 . “[The] [d]efendant bears the burden of persuasion in showing both that a clear and obvious error exists and that one of the prongs is satisfied.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Marcos, 2013 IL App (1st) 111040, ¶ 58 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |