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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences2020We also reject defendant’s contention that “the jury was especially likely to be confused where it received the instructions on self-defense in relation to first and second degree murder out of sequence.” See, e.g., People v. Anderson, 2012 IL App (1st) 103288, ¶ 45 (concluding that “[a]lthough the instructions were not read to the jury in the precise order directed by the drafting committee, the trial court clearly conveyed the applicable law and the proper instructions to the jury”). ¶ 119 We thus conclude that there was no plain error vis-à-vis the trial court’s answer to the jury note. 2018We also reject defendant’s contention that “the jury was especially likely to be confused where it received the instructions on self-defense in relation to first and second degree murder out of sequence.” See, e.g., People v. Anderson, 2012 IL App (1st) 103288, ¶ 45 (concluding that “[a]lthough the 45 1-14-0369 instructions were not read to the jury in the precise order directed by the drafting committee, the trial court clearly conveyed the applicable law and proper instructions to the jury”). ¶ 119 We thus conclude that there was no plain error vis-à-vis the trial court’s answer to the jury | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hale
green
2 sentences2020While “fundamental fairness requires that the jury be instructed on the elements of the offense charged” (People v. Hale, 2012 IL App (4th) 100949, ¶ 22 ), the instructions in the instant case satisfied such requirement. 2018While “fundamental fairness requires that the jury be instructed on the elements of the offense charged,” (People v. Hale, 2012 IL App (4th) 100949, ¶ 22 ), the instructions in the instant case satisfied such requirement. | 3 | 2017–2020 |
People v. Aljohani
neutral
2 sentences2021Taken together, the evidence in this case satisfied this standard. ¶ 101 CONCLUSION ¶ 102 For the foregoing reasons, we do not find defendant’s claims persuasive, and we affirm his conviction and sentence. ¶ 103 Affirmed. 31 Cite as: People v. Aljohani, 2021 IL App (1st) 190692 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 15-CR- 6105; the Hon. 2021Taken together, the evidence in this case satisfied this standard. ¶ 101 CONCLUSION ¶ 102 For the foregoing reasons, we do not find defendant’s claims persuasive, and we affirm his conviction and sentence. ¶ 103 Affirmed. 31 Cite as: People v. Aljohani, 2021 IL App (1st) 190692 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 15-CR- 6105; the Hon. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Aljohani
green
1 sentence2020Taken together, the evidence in this case satisfied this standard. ¶ 101 CONCLUSION ¶ 102 For the foregoing reasons, we do not find defendant’s claims persuasive, and we affirm his conviction and sentence. ¶ 103 Affirmed. 31 Cite as: People v. Aljohani, 2020 IL App (1st) 190692 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 15-CR- 6105; the Hon. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.