6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 4 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. Herrongreen1 sentence2026The first prong of the plain-error rule “i.e., the closely balanced evidence prong, ‘guards against errors that could lead to the conviction of an innocent person.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id. ¶ 23 (quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Speightgreen1 sentence2024See id. at 377 (rejecting a claim of cumulative error when the - 34 - No. 1-22-1555 alleged errors were harmless and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caffeygreen1 sentence2023See People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 118 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Doylegreen1 sentence2021See People v. Doyle, 328 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Albanese
green
2 sentences1999People v. Albanese , 104 Ill. 2d 504, 524 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984). 1999People v. Albanese , 104 Ill. 2d 504, 524 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Moon
green
2 sentences2026Like the State, we question defendant’s arithmetic because some of the testimony defendant assails as unduly prejudicial was largely G.L. explaining how defendant would isolate her from other adults or her older sister, how defendant would touch or rub her (both over and under her clothes), and how defendant would abuse her as she held one of her younger brothers in her arms—as if to give his sexual touching the veneer of having been accidental. -7- Contrary to defendant’s argument, G.L.’s explanations provided context and were inextricably intertwined with her description of the charged offen 2026Like the State, we question defendant’s arithmetic because some of the testimony defendant assails as unduly prejudicial was largely G.L. explaining how defendant would isolate her from other adults or her older sister, how defendant would touch or rub her (both over and under her clothes), and how defendant would abuse her as she held one of her younger brothers in her arms—as if to give his sexual touching the veneer of having been accidental. -7- Contrary to defendant’s argument, G.L.’s explanations provided context and were inextricably intertwined with her description of the charged offen | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.