finding of reversible error (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

finding of reversible error in Illinois

7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2024 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Songergreen
illappct · 1992 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024Thus, these considerations weigh against a finding of reversible error. ¶ 58 “Reversal for improperly admitted hearsay evidence is not warranted where properly admitted evidence proves the same matter.” People v. Songer, 229 Ill.

11
People v. Greengreen
illappct · 2017 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See People v. Green, 2017 IL App (1st) 152513, ¶ 118 . ¶ 91 Defendant asserts that his trial delay was prejudicial and further notes he was not present when the parties agreed to the month-long postponement after the second day of his trial.

11
People v. Calhoungreen
illappct · 1984 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
1 sentence

1988See People v. Calhoun (1984), 126 Ill.

11
People v. Jonesgreen
ill · 1979 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983
2 sentences

1983Compare People v. Jones (1979), 81 Ill. 2d 1 , 405 N.E.2d 343 .

1983Compare People v. Jones (1979), 81 Ill. 2d 1 , 405 N.E.2d 343 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Hope green
ill · 1986
1 sentence

1990As for the State’s suggestion that any error was harmless here, “[t]he extent to which such inflammatory [evidence and argument] affected the jury *** in its vote to impose the death penalty will never be known” (Hope I, 116 Ill. 2d at 278 ), and “[w]e cannot speculate as to the extent to which the jury was influenced by this incompetent evidence and inflammatory argument” (People v. Dukes (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 334, 340 ).

11990–1990
The People v. Dukes green
ill · 1957
1 sentence

1990As for the State’s suggestion that any error was harmless here, “[t]he extent to which such inflammatory [evidence and argument] affected the jury *** in its vote to impose the death penalty will never be known” (Hope I, 116 Ill. 2d at 278 ), and “[w]e cannot speculate as to the extent to which the jury was influenced by this incompetent evidence and inflammatory argument” (People v. Dukes (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 334, 340 ).

11990–1990
People v. Simms green
ill · 1988
1 sentence

1990On the contrary, here we have as powerfully emotion-laden a body of argument and testimony as supported the finding of reversible error in People v. Simms (1988), 121 Ill. 2d 259 — and in Simms the argument and testimony were heard by a sentencing judge alone rather than, as here, by a presumably more impressionable jury.

11990–1990
People v. Smith green
illappct · 1982
1 sentence

1988App. 3d at 908 , 444 N.E.2d at 809 .) Finally, where overwhelming evidence of a defendant’s guilt exists, any possibility of prejudice to the defendant from improper comment on failure to call a witness may be nullified and a finding of reversible error precluded.

11988–1988
People v. Olejniczak green
illappct · 1979
1 sentence

1984People v. Olejniczak (1979), 73 Ill.

11984–1984
People v. Scott neutral
illappct · 1980
1 sentence

1984App. 3d 106, 112 , 415 N.E.2d 1082 .) In the present case, while we agree that the State’s comments were improper, we conclude that the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt nullifies any possibility of prejudice to defendant and precludes a finding of reversible error.

11984–1984
Gordon v. Checker Taxi Co. green
illappct · 1948
1 sentence

1977App. 313,322 , 79 N.E.2d 632, 636 .) Thus, Gordon is not clear precedent in the instant case because we cannot be sure how much the prejudicial effect of the jury instructions contributed to the finding of reversible error.

11977–1977

Where else courts name it

LA 33 (1976–2023) MS 24 (1994–2024) TX 23 (1979–2022) IL 7 (1977–2024) MO 7 (1959–1996) PA 5 (1996–2019) DE 4 (1984–2025) OH 4 (1991–2014) AL 4 (1982–2018) MI 4 (1970–1980) GA 4 (1975–2001) KS 3 (1978–2015) RI 3 (1995–2008) IA 3 (1944–1986) AR 3 (1980–2020) CT 2 (1988–1991) NJ 2 (1981–2007) AZ 2 (1967–2014) CA 2 (1992–2007) IN 2 (1981–1986) FL 2 (1983–1985) CO 2 (1979–2010) SD 2 (2004–2004) NM 2 (1973–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check