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 2018–2022 1 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2022See People v. Frazier, 2019 IL App (1st) 172250, ¶ 36 (under Hulitt, “ ‘[a]n expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity because *** that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois’ ” (quoting People v. Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 ); People v. Nepras, 2020 IL App (2d) 180081, ¶ 28 (under Hulitt, defense expert was properly barred from testifying that defendant could not form intent to commit theft, as such testimony was “effectively a diminished-capacity defense” that is “no longer available in Illinois” and, thus, “a defendant may not raise it 2020As noted, however, “[a]n expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity because *** that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois.” Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 (citing Hulitt, 361 Ill. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Hulittgreen2 sentences2020As noted, however, “[a]n expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity because *** that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois.” Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 (citing Hulitt, 361 Ill. 2019As noted, however, “[a]n expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity because *** that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois.” Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 (citing Hulitt, 361 Ill. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Neprasgreen1 sentence2022See People v. Frazier, 2019 IL App (1st) 172250, ¶ 36 (under Hulitt, “ ‘[a]n expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity because *** that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois’ ” (quoting People v. Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 ); People v. Nepras, 2020 IL App (2d) 180081, ¶ 28 (under Hulitt, defense expert was properly barred from testifying that defendant could not form intent to commit theft, as such testimony was “effectively a diminished-capacity defense” that is “no longer available in Illinois” and, thus, “a defendant may not raise it | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fraziergreen1 sentence2022See People v. Frazier, 2019 IL App (1st) 172250, ¶ 36 (under Hulitt, “ ‘[a]n expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity because *** that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois’ ” (quoting People v. Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 ); People v. Nepras, 2020 IL App (2d) 180081, ¶ 28 (under Hulitt, defense expert was properly barred from testifying that defendant could not form intent to commit theft, as such testimony was “effectively a diminished-capacity defense” that is “no longer available in Illinois” and, thus, “a defendant may not raise it | 1 | 1 |
People v. Himbergreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., People v. Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 (“An expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity, because, as we have previously stated, that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois”); People v. Himber, 2020 IL App (1st) 162182, ¶ 55 (voluntary intoxication cannot be asserted as an affirmative defense to negate the element of intent); 720 ILCS 5/6-3 (West 2014) (“A person who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition is criminally responsible for conduct unless such - 21 - No. 1-17-2497 condition is involuntarily produced and deprives him of | 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. Freedman
green
1 sentence2020See, e.g., People v. Johnson, 2018 IL App (1st) 140725, ¶ 70 (“An expert may not give an opinion supporting the doctrine of diminished mental capacity, because, as we have previously stated, that doctrine is not recognized in Illinois”); People v. Himber, 2020 IL App (1st) 162182, ¶ 55 (voluntary intoxication cannot be asserted as an affirmative defense to negate the element of intent); 720 ILCS 5/6-3 (West 2014) (“A person who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition is criminally responsible for conduct unless such - 21 - No. 1-17-2497 condition is involuntarily produced and deprives him of | 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.