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.
62 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 5 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. Collinsgreen2 sentences1994Ed. 2d 560, 573 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 .) It is not the function of the reviewing court to retry the defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence (Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261 , 478 N.E.2d at 277 ); rather, the determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are the responsibilities of the trier of fact. 1994Ed. 2d 560, 573 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 .) It is not the function of the reviewing court to retry the defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence (Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261 , 478 N.E.2d at 277 ); rather, the determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are the responsibilities of the trier of fact. | 8 | 21 |
People v. Boclairgreen2 sentences1999People v. Boclair, 129 Ill. 2d 458 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989). 1999People v. Boclair, 129 Ill. 2d 458 , 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989). | 5 | 6 |
People v. Steidlgreen2 sentences2022“It is not the function of [a reviewing court] to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” People v. Steidl, 142 Ill. 2d 204, 226 , 568 N.E.2d 837, 845 (1991). ¶ 92 To prove respondent guilty of possession with intent to deliver cannabis, the State needed to establish that respondent (1) knew of the cannabis, (2) possessed the cannabis, and (3) intended to deliver the cannabis. 720 ILCS 550/5(d) (West 2020). 2022“It is not the function of [a reviewing court] to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” People v. Steidl, 142 Ill. 2d 204, 226 , 568 N.E.2d 837, 845 (1991). ¶ 92 To prove respondent guilty of possession with intent to deliver cannabis, the State needed to establish that respondent (1) knew of the cannabis, (2) possessed the cannabis, and (3) intended to deliver the cannabis. 720 ILCS 550/5(d) (West 2020). | 3 | 12 |
People v. Wheelergreen2 sentences2026People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92, 114 (2007). 2014Id. | 3 | 6 |
People v. Oaksred2 sentences1999In People v. Oaks , 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328, 1349-50 (1996), the supreme court addressed a defendant's argument that the State's evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction and wrote the following: "[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determi nations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Cit 1999In People v. Oaks , 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328, 1349-50 (1996), the supreme court addressed a defendant's argument that the State's evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction and wrote the following: "[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determi nations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Cit | 3 | 3 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2015People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532 , 541 -8- 1-13-1022 (1999). 2003People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 541 (1999). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Sutherlandgreen2 sentences2025Reviewing courts do not substitute credibility assessments of the factfinder (see People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 242 (2006)), and it is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. 2020People v. Starks, 2014 IL App (1st) 121169, ¶ 51 ; People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 242 (2006); see also People v. Nwosu, 289 Ill. App. 3d 487, 493-94 (1997) (“The trier of fact is also given the function of resolving discrepancies or conflicts in the testimony. [Citation.] It is not the function of this court to retry the defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Beverlygreen2 sentences1999In People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328, 1349-50 (1996), the supreme court addressed a defendant’s argument that the State’s evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction and wrote the following: “[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Citations.] 1999In People v. Oaks , 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328, 1349-50 (1996), the supreme court addressed a defendant's argument that the State's evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction and wrote the following: "[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determi nations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Cit | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences1998In People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328,1349-50 (1996), the Supreme Court of Illinois again set forth the standard of review of questions concerning the sufficiency of evidence as follows: "[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Citations.] In considering 1998In People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328,1349-50 (1996), the Supreme Court of Illinois again set forth the standard of review of questions concerning the sufficiency of evidence as follows: "[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Citations.] In considering | 1 | 11 |
People v. Brinkgreen2 sentences2001People v. Brink, 294 Ill. 2001People v. Brink , 294 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Campbellgreen2 sentences1998In People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328,1349-50 (1996), the Supreme Court of Illinois again set forth the standard of review of questions concerning the sufficiency of evidence as follows: "[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Citations.] In considering 1998In People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 457-58 , 662 N.E.2d 1328,1349-50 (1996), the Supreme Court of Illinois again set forth the standard of review of questions concerning the sufficiency of evidence as follows: "[I]t is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. [Citations.] In considering | 1 | 2 |
People v. Brisbongreen2 sentences1990On review, a criminal conviction will not be set aside on grounds of insufficient evidence unless the proof is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. ( People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill.2d 237, 261 , 87 Ill.Dec. 910 , 478 N.E.2d 267 ; People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill.2d 309, 315 , 67 Ill.Dec. 97 , 444 N.E.2d 136 ; People v. Vriner (1978), 74 Ill.2d 329, 342 , 24 Ill.Dec. 530 , 385 N.E.2d 671 .) "It is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. ( Collins, 106 Ill.2d 1990On review, a criminal conviction will not be set aside on grounds of insufficient evidence unless the proof is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. ( People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill.2d 237, 261 , 87 Ill.Dec. 910 , 478 N.E.2d 267 ; People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill.2d 309, 315 , 67 Ill.Dec. 97 , 444 N.E.2d 136 ; People v. Vriner (1978), 74 Ill.2d 329, 342 , 24 Ill.Dec. 530 , 385 N.E.2d 671 .) "It is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. ( Collins, 106 Ill.2d | 1 | 2 |
People v. Brackettgreen1 sentence2026Hooker, 249 Ill. App. 3d at 400-01 . ¶ 51 Mr. Owens cites People v. Brackett, 117 Ill. 2d 170, 180 (1987), for the proposition that “death is not ordinarily contemplated as a natural consequence of blows from bare fists.” In People v. Nibbe, the court found that the principle was applicable where the defendant struck the victim in the face with one blow from his bare fist and the victim fell to the ground and hit his head on the concrete, which killed him. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coopergreen1 sentence2021The inquiry on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Cooper, 194 Ill. 2d 419, 430-31 (2000) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 433 U.S. 307 , 319 (1979)). ¶ 25 It is not the reviewing court’s function to retry the defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nwosugreen1 sentence2020People v. Starks, 2014 IL App (1st) 121169, ¶ 51 ; People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 242 (2006); see also People v. Nwosu, 289 Ill. App. 3d 487, 493-94 (1997) (“The trier of fact is also given the function of resolving discrepancies or conflicts in the testimony. [Citation.] It is not the function of this court to retry the defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence”). | 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. Jimerson
green
2 sentences1991“A criminal conviction will not be set aside on review unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. [Citations.] It is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. [Citations.] Rather, determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact.” (People v. Jimerson (1989), 127 Ill. 2d 12, 43 .) Upon review, once a defen 1991Initially, we note that “[a] criminal conviction will not be set aside on review unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Jimerson (1989), 127 Ill. 2d 12, 43 ; People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 .) It is not the function of this court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. | 6 | 1989–1996 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences1993The standards governing our review are familiar: "A criminal conviction will not be set aside [on review] unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 , 478 N.E.2d 267 ; People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 309 , 444 N.E.2d 136 ; People v. Vriner (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 329 , 385 N.E.2d 671 .) It is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. 1993The standards governing our review are familiar: "A criminal conviction will not be set aside [on review] unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 , 478 N.E.2d 267 ; People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 309 , 444 N.E.2d 136 ; People v. Vriner (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 329 , 385 N.E.2d 671 .) It is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. | 6 | 1989–1993 |
People v. Vriner
green
2 sentences1993The standards governing our review are familiar: "A criminal conviction will not be set aside [on review] unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 , 478 N.E.2d 267 ; People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 309 , 444 N.E.2d 136 ; People v. Vriner (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 329 , 385 N.E.2d 671 .) It is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. 1993The standards governing our review are familiar: "A criminal conviction will not be set aside [on review] unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 , 478 N.E.2d 267 ; People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 309 , 444 N.E.2d 136 ; People v. Vriner (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 329 , 385 N.E.2d 671 .) It is not our function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. | 6 | 1989–1993 |
People v. Burrows
green
2 sentences1994The standard of review on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-established: "`"A criminal conviction will not be set aside on review unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt." [Citations.] It is not the function of this court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. [Citation.] Instead, *444 determination of the weight to be given to witnesses' testimony, their credibility, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are the responsibility 1994The standard of review on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-established: "`"A criminal conviction will not be set aside on review unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt." [Citations.] It is not the function of this court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. [Citation.] Instead, *444 determination of the weight to be given to witnesses' testimony, their credibility, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are the responsibility | 3 | 1992–1994 |
People v. Tye
green
2 sentences1996(People v. Tye (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 1, 13 ; People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 .) Rather, determinations of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are responsibilities of the trier of fact. 1994People v. Tye (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 1, 13 , 565 N.E.2d 931, 937 , cert, denied (1991), 502 U.S. 833 , 116 L. | 2 | 1994–1996 |
People v. Morgan
red
2 sentences1993(People v. Morgan (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 410, 439 .) It is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. 1992(People v. Morgan (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 410, 439 .) It is not the function of the reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. | 2 | 1992–1993 |
People v. Furby
green
2 sentences1993(Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 .) We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court where the evidence is conflicting (Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 ) because it is not the function of a reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt (People v. Furby (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 434, 455 , 563 N.E.2d 421 ). 1993(Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 .) We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court where the evidence is conflicting (Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 ) because it is not the function of a reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt (People v. Furby (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 434, 455 , 563 N.E.2d 421 ). | 2 | 1991–1993 |
People v. Frieberg
green
2 sentences1992On review, a criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. ( People v. Burrows (1992), 148 Ill.2d 196, 224 , 170 Ill.Dec. 317 , 592 N.E.2d 997 .) It is not this court's function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. ( People v. Steidl (1991), 142 Ill.2d 204, 226 , 154 Ill.Dec. 616 , 568 N.E.2d 837 .) The jury weighs the credibility of witnesses and resolves the conflicts or inconsistencies in their testimony. ( People v. Frieberg (19 1992On review, a criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there remains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. ( People v. Burrows (1992), 148 Ill.2d 196, 224 , 170 Ill.Dec. 317 , 592 N.E.2d 997 .) It is not this court's function to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. ( People v. Steidl (1991), 142 Ill.2d 204, 226 , 154 Ill.Dec. 616 , 568 N.E.2d 837 .) The jury weighs the credibility of witnesses and resolves the conflicts or inconsistencies in their testimony. ( People v. Frieberg (19 | 2 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Hooker
green
1 sentence2026Hooker, 249 Ill. App. 3d at 400-01 . ¶ 51 Mr. Owens cites People v. Brackett, 117 Ill. 2d 170, 180 (1987), for the proposition that “death is not ordinarily contemplated as a natural consequence of blows from bare fists.” In People v. Nibbe, the court found that the principle was applicable where the defendant struck the victim in the face with one blow from his bare fist and the victim fell to the ground and hit his head on the concrete, which killed him. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Cordle
green
1 sentence2022Respondent concedes he knew of and possessed the cannabis and challenges only the third element. ¶ 93 “[A] reasonable inference of the intent to deliver may arise from possession of a quantity of drugs in excess of that needed for personal use.” Cordle, 210 Ill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Beauchamp
green
1 sentence2014People v. Beauchamp, 241 Ill. 2d at 8 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Carrasquilla
neutral
1 sentence1996People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363 , 586 N.E.2d 1261 (1992); People v. Jimerson, 127 Ill. 2d 12 , 535 N.E.2d 889 (1989); People v. Carrasquilla, 167 Ill. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ahferom v. Michigan Bureau of Workers Disability Compensation
green
1 sentence1994People v. Tye (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 1, 13 , 565 N.E.2d 931, 937 , cert, denied (1991), 502 U.S. 833 , 116 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Felella
green
2 sentences1993(Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 .) We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court where the evidence is conflicting (Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 ) because it is not the function of a reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt (People v. Furby (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 434, 455 , 563 N.E.2d 421 ). 1993(Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 .) We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court where the evidence is conflicting (Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 534 ) because it is not the function of a reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt (People v. Furby (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 434, 455 , 563 N.E.2d 421 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1993It is not the function of a reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of his guilt, and determinations of the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are the responsibilities of the trier of fact. ( People v. Thomas (1993), 242 Ill.App.3d 266, 275 , 182 Ill.Dec. 533, 539 , 609 N.E.2d 1067, 1073 .) Given these rules of appellate review, we find it inappropriate to reassess witnesses' credibility and therefore acquiesce in the jury's finding in regard to defendant' 1993It is not the function of a reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of his guilt, and determinations of the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are the responsibilities of the trier of fact. ( People v. Thomas (1993), 242 Ill.App.3d 266, 275 , 182 Ill.Dec. 533, 539 , 609 N.E.2d 1067, 1073 .) Given these rules of appellate review, we find it inappropriate to reassess witnesses' credibility and therefore acquiesce in the jury's finding in regard to defendant' | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Eyler green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.