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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2011 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. Jonesgreen2 sentences2011See Jones, 174 Ill.2d at 429 , 221 Ill.Dec. 192 , 675 N.E.2d 99 ("a portion from each * * * [seized] sample must be tested in order to determine the contents of each * * * sample"). ¶ 32 In light of the deference owed to the jury's verdict, especially when ambiguous testimony is before it, we reject the defendant's contention that the State failed to prove the weight element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 2011See Jones, 174 Ill.2d at 429 , 221 Ill.Dec. 192 , 675 N.E.2d 99 ("a portion from each * * * [seized] sample must be tested in order to determine the contents of each * * * sample"). ¶ 32 In light of the deference owed to the jury's verdict, especially when ambiguous testimony is before it, we reject the defendant's contention that the State failed to prove the weight element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. | 4 | 4 |
People v. McDonaldred2 sentences2011See McDonald, 168 Ill.2d at 447 , 214 Ill.Dec. 125 , 660 N.E.2d 832 (it is for the jury to determine which inference to draw from ambiguous evidence). ¶ 31 Chemist Rayford also described the confirmatory test she would have performed on the seized substance: "[Y]ou take a small amount of the sample, you put it into a glass vial with a reagent in it and then you put it on an instrument. * * * [T]he instrument reads what's in the vial." From this testimony, the jury could have reasonably concluded that each seized packet constituted a "sample," as chemist Rayford used that term (consistent with 2011See McDonald, 168 Ill.2d at 447 , 214 Ill.Dec. 125 , 660 N.E.2d 832 (it is for the jury to determine which inference to draw from ambiguous evidence). ¶ 31 Chemist Rayford also described the confirmatory test she would have performed on the seized substance: "[Y]ou take a small amount of the sample, you put it into a glass vial with a reagent in it and then you put it on an instrument. * * * [T]he instrument reads what's in the vial." From this testimony, the jury could have reasonably concluded that each seized packet constituted a "sample," as chemist Rayford used that term (consistent with | 2 | 2 |
Voykin v. Estate of DeBoergreen1 sentence2002See Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, 192 Ill. 2d 49, 57 (2000) (evidence that has any tendency to make the existence of a material fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence is relevant). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen1 sentence1991See Hill, 169 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. Taylor
green
1 sentence1994Similarly, in People v. Taylor (1992), 236 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.
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.