defendant to prove defense in Illinois

2025Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 92 . ¶ 102 Here, the State does not dispute that Horton’s testimony was material and noncumulative.

2024Id. § 6-2(e).

2013Id.

1993It has been held that without some discovery it may be difficult for a defendant to prove his challenge to a confidential informant’s existence or reliability under Franks. (.People v. Elworthy, 214 Ill.

1993App. 3d 914 , 574 N.E.2d 727 .) One of the requirements for a subpoena for documents is that the documents must be evidentiary and relevant.

1991(People v. Torres (1990), 200 Ill.

1988In Leland, the Court held that an Oregon statute requiring the defendant to prove the defense of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt did not violate defendant’s right to due process since Oregon still required the State to first prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ( 343 U.S. at 799 , 96 L.

1988Ed. at 1309, 72 S. Ct. at 1007-08 .) The Court specifically rejected the defendant’s contention that the jury may have been confused between the State’s burden of proving intent, in that case premeditation, and the defendant’s burden of proving insanity. ( 343 U.S. at 800 , 96 L.

1940Ferrero v. National Council of Knights and Ladies of Security, 309 Ill. 476, 480 ; Knights Templars’ & Masons’ Life Indemnity Co. v. Crayton, 209 Ill. 550, 557 ; Supreme Tent Knights of Maccabees v. Stensland, 206 Ill. 124 ; Wilkinson v. Ætna Life Ins.

1940Ferrero v. National Council of Knights and Ladies of Security, 309 Ill. 476, 480 ; Knights Templars’ & Masons’ Life Indemnity Co. v. Crayton, 209 Ill. 550, 557 ; Supreme Tent Knights of Maccabees v. Stensland, 206 Ill. 124 ; Wilkinson v. Ætna Life Ins.

1940Ferrero v. National Council of Knights and Ladies of Security, 309 Ill. 476, 480 ; Knights Templars’ & Masons’ Life Indemnity Co. v. Crayton, 209 Ill. 550, 557 ; Supreme Tent Knights of Maccabees v. Stensland, 206 Ill. 124 ; Wilkinson v. Ætna Life Ins.