jury consider defense in Illinois

7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2006 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Daileygreen illappct · 1989 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1990–1999 2 sentences 1999App. 3d 683, 688 , 544 N.E.2d 449, 453 (1989), this court held that a defendant is entitled to have a jury consider his claim of justifiable use of force even when the evidence concerning that theory is very slight, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility. 1990This is true even where the evidence concerning that theory is very slight, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.” (Emphasis in original.) (People v. Dailey (1989), 188 Ill.	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
Washington Courte Condominium Association-Four v. WASHINGTON-GOLF CORPORATION green illappct · 1994 2 sentences 2006Plaintiffs also turn to Washington Courte, 267 Ill. 2006Plaintiffs also turn to Washington Courte, 267 Ill.	2	2006–2006
In Re WC green ill · 1995 2 sentences 2002Because this was an accountability case and the State was required to show “(1) the defendant solicited, ordered, abetted, agreed, or attempted to aid * in the planning or commission of the crime; (2) the defendant’s participation took place before or during the commission of the crime; and (3) the defendant had the concurrent intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime” (In re W.C., 167 Ill. 2d 307, 337 , 657 N.E. 2d 908 (1995)), I believe the defendant was also entitled to have the jury consider the defense of withdrawal. 2002Because this was an accountability case and the State was required to show “(1) the defendant solicited, ordered, abetted, agreed, or attempted to aid * in the planning or commission of the crime; (2) the defendant’s participation took place before or during the commission of the crime; and (3) the defendant had the concurrent intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime” (In re W.C., 167 Ill. 2d 307, 337 , 657 N.E. 2d 908 (1995)), I believe the defendant was also entitled to have the jury consider the defense of withdrawal.	2	2002–2002
People v. Harris green illappct · 1976 2 sentences 1981It is well settled that a defendant is entitled to have the jury consider his claim of justifiable use of force where that defense has some foundation in the evidence. ( People v. Harris (1976), 39 Ill. 1981(People v. Harris (1976), 39 Ill.	1	1981–1981

Where else courts name it

TX 7 (1993–2025) IL 7 (1981–2006) WA 3 (1984–2014) VA 2 (1993–2003) OR 2 (1959–2015) WI 2 (1987–2014) NY 2 (1979–1989) HI 2 (1990–2011) ND 2 (2024–2024) GA 2 (2018–2018)

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