allegations error in Illinois

1994In reference to allegedly improper prosecutorial remarks made in closing argument, the supreme court in People v. Cisewski (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 163 , 514 N.E.2d 970 , stated: "In reviewing the defendant’s allegations of error here, we first note that a prosecutor is allowed a great deal of latitude in making the closing argument [citations], and the trial court’s determination of the propriety of the argument will generally be followed absent a clear abuse of discretion [citation].

1994In reference to allegedly improper prosecutorial remarks made in closing argument, the supreme court in People v. Cisewski (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 163 , 514 N.E.2d 970 , stated: "In reviewing the defendant’s allegations of error here, we first note that a prosecutor is allowed a great deal of latitude in making the closing argument [citations], and the trial court’s determination of the propriety of the argument will generally be followed absent a clear abuse of discretion [citation].

2021If the trial court denies the motion, defendant may still appeal his assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel along with his other assignments of error.” Id. at 81-82 . ¶ 41 Because this case must be remanded to allow the trial court to conduct proper Krankel proceedings, we decline to address the defendant’s other allegations of error.

2019If the trial court denies the motion, defendant may still appeal his assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel along with his other assignments of error.” Id. at 81-82 . ¶ 26 Because this case must be remanded to allow the trial court to conduct proper Krankel proceedings, we decline to address the defendant’s other allegations of error.

2003Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill.2d 466 , 212 Ill.Dec. 643 , 657 N.E.2d 988 (1995), involved a jury trial, and Harrison v. Hardin County Community Unit School District No. 1, 197 Ill.2d 466 , 259 Ill.Dec. 440 , 758 N.E.2d 848 (2001), involved a summary judgment motion, not section 2-619(a)(9) motions to dismiss.

2003Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466 (1995), involved a jury trial, and Harrison v. Hardin County Community Unit School District No. 1, 197 Ill. 2d 466 (2001), involved a summary judgment motion, not section 2 — 619(a)(9) motions to dismiss.

2003Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill.2d 466 , 212 Ill.Dec. 643 , 657 N.E.2d 988 (1995), involved a jury trial, and Harrison v. Hardin County Community Unit School District No. 1, 197 Ill.2d 466 , 259 Ill.Dec. 440 , 758 N.E.2d 848 (2001), involved a summary judgment motion, not section 2-619(a)(9) motions to dismiss.

2003Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466 (1995), involved a jury trial, and Harrison v. Hardin County Community Unit School District No. 1, 197 Ill. 2d 466 (2001), involved a summary judgment motion, not section 2 — 619(a)(9) motions to dismiss.

2002Bruno Appliance , 62 Ill.

2002Bruno Appliance, 62 Ill.

1999Calhoun, 234 Ill.

1999Calhoun , 234 Ill.

1998To support this argument, the defendant relies upon Kus v. Sherman Hospital , 204 Ill.

1998To support this argument, the defendant relies upon Kus v. Sherman Hospital, 204 Ill.

2024The discussion, which was directed at “the allegations of error previously examined,” directly precedes the discussion of ineffective assistance of counsel claims and is related to violations of the sixth amendment right to an impartial jury under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).

2024Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d at 524 .

2021“In deciding a section 2-619 motion, a court accepts all well-pleaded facts and their inferences as true and construes all pleadings and supporting documents in favor of the non- moving party.” Estate of Alford v. Shelton, 2017 IL 121199, ¶ 21 .

2009ANALYSIS Defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination of Detectives Guilfoyle and Ruettiger concerning then-pending civil litigation against them involving the detectives’ interrogation of a suspect in a different case; (2) the trial court erred in excluding from evidence a psychological test relied on by defendant’s expert; (3) the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement at the guilt phase of the trial; (4) the trial court erred in disch

2009ANALYSIS Defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination of Detectives Guilfoyle and Ruettiger concerning then-pending civil litigation against them involving the detectives’ interrogation of a suspect in a different case; (2) the trial court erred in excluding from evidence a psychological test relied on by defendant’s expert; (3) the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement at the guilt phase of the trial; (4) the trial court erred in disch

2004People v. Rivera, 307 Ill.

1998To support this argument, the defendant relies upon Kus v. Sherman Hospital, 204 Ill.App.3d 66 , 149 Ill.Dec. 103 , 561 N.E.2d 381 (1990), and Kolanowski v. Illinois Valley Community Hospital, 188 Ill.

1994To constitute reversible error, the complained-of remarks must have resulted in substantial prejudice to the accused, such that absent those remarks the verdict would have been different. [Citation.] In reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the closing arguments of both the State and the defendant must be examined in their entirety and the complained-of comments must be placed in their proper context.” (Cisewski, 118 Ill. 2d at 175-76 .) (See also People v. Thompkins (1988), 121 Ill. 2d 401 , 521 N.E.2d 38 .) A prosecutor may argue the evidence presented or reasonable inferences f

1994To constitute reversible error, the complained-of remarks must have resulted in substantial prejudice to the accused, such that absent those remarks the verdict would have been different. [Citation.] In reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the closing arguments of both the State and the defendant must be examined in their entirety and the complained-of comments must be placed in their proper context.” (Cisewski, 118 Ill. 2d at 175-76 .) (See also People v. Thompkins (1988), 121 Ill. 2d 401 , 521 N.E.2d 38 .) A prosecutor may argue the evidence presented or reasonable inferences f

1993(People v. Murray (1990), 201 Ill.

1993We are compelled by Brown v. Decatur Memorial Hospital (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 344 , 415 N.E.2d 337 , a case cited by Sears, to hold that the plaintiff’s post-trial motion was not sufficiently specific to preserve for review the question of the sufficiency of the instructions.

1993In Brown, the post-trial motion alleged that “The court refused to give Plaintiff’s tendered instructions 9, 11, and 16” and that “The Court gave, over objection of the Plaintiff, Defendant’s tendered instructions 2, 3, and 4.” (Brown, 83 Ill. 2d at 349 .) The supreme court held that because neither of the allegations of error specified the ground upon which it was based, they were clearly inadequate under section 68.1(2) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.

1993To constitute reversible error, the complained-of remarks must have resulted in substantial prejudice to the accused, such that absent those remarks the verdict would have been different. [Citation.] In reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the closing arguments of both the State and the defendant must be examined in their entirety and the complained-of comments must be placed in their proper context.” (Cisewski, 118 Ill. 2d at 175-76 .) "Although it is generally improper to vouch for the credibility of a witness or to express a personal opinion on a case, remarks are to be examin

1992The prosecutor’s response focused on the fact that there was no evidentiary basis to support some of the allegations in defense counsel’s opening statement. “[F]ailure to produce evidence on a material matter injected into the case by the defense gives rise to the right of comment by the prosecution.” (People v. Durso (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 242, 253 .) During the trial, nothing was presented as evidence that Patrick Parker either sold or used cocaine.