response defense in Illinois

49 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 8 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 (18)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Hudsongreen ill · 1993 · cited in 3 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2026 2 sentences 2019See Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d at 441 . ¶ 54 Moreover, the State’s response to defense counsel’s argument concerning defendant’s confession in no way minimized or shifted the State’s burden of proof. 2002See People v. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d 401, 441 , 193 Ill.Dec. 128 , 626 N.E.2d 161, 178 (1993) (the prosecutor may respond to comments by defense counsel that clearly invite a response); People v. Smith, 154 Ill.App.3d 837, 849 , 107 Ill.Dec. 630 , 507 N.E.2d 543, 552 (1987) (the prosecutor's comment during rebuttal that defense counsel was setting up a "smoke screen" was a proper response to defense counsel's closing argument).	3	3
People v. Pryorgreen illappct · 2007 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun	2	2
People v. Averettgreen ill · 2010 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun	2	2
People v. Halerewiczgreen illappct · 2014 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun 2017App. 3d 948, 951-52 (1992) (although the defendant initially proposed an answer of “ ‘no’ ” to a similar jury question, “[w]hen the judge finally proposed [his own] response, he asked both attorneys if it was satisfactory; they both agreed that it was”); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 23-24 (2010) (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response to a jury question where defense counsel agreed with the trial court’s response); People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 23 (defendant could not challenge on appeal the trial court’s response where defense coun	2	2
People v. Evansgreen ill · 2004 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Evans, 209 Ill. 2d at 223, 225 (prosecutor’s reference to the O. 2008See Evans, 209 Ill. 2d at 223, 225 (prosecutor’s reference to the O.J.	2	2
People v. Garciagreen ill · 1995 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Garcia, 165 Ill.2d at 426 , 209 Ill.Dec. 172 , 651 N.E.2d 100 . 2008See Garcia, 165 Ill.2d at 426 , 209 Ill.Dec. 172 , 651 N.E.2d 100 .	2	2
People v. Kiddgreen ill · 1992 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002In this case, the prosecutor described defense counsel’s attempt to focus on the minor inconsistencies in the case as a “smoke screen.” The prosecutor’s remark did not disparage the integrity of the defense as did the extensive remarks at issue in the two cases cited by defendant, People v. Kidd, 147 Ill. 2d 510, 544 , 591 N.E.2d 431, 447 (1992) (in which “the assistant State’s Attorney did not make just one fleeting, inadvertent remark regarding this ‘smoke screen’ metaphor. 2002In this case, the prosecutor described defense counsel’s attempt to focus on the minor inconsistencies in the case as a “smoke screen.” The prosecutor’s remark did not disparage the integrity of the defense as did the extensive remarks at issue in the two cases cited by defendant, People v. Kidd, 147 Ill. 2d 510, 544 , 591 N.E.2d 431, 447 (1992) (in which “the assistant State’s Attorney did not make just one fleeting, inadvertent remark regarding this ‘smoke screen’ metaphor.	2	2
People v. Smithgreen illappct · 1987 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See People v. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d 401, 441 , 193 Ill.Dec. 128 , 626 N.E.2d 161, 178 (1993) (the prosecutor may respond to comments by defense counsel that clearly invite a response); People v. Smith, 154 Ill.App.3d 837, 849 , 107 Ill.Dec. 630 , 507 N.E.2d 543, 552 (1987) (the prosecutor's comment during rebuttal that defense counsel was setting up a "smoke screen" was a proper response to defense counsel's closing argument). 2002App. 3d 837, 849 , 507 N.E.2d 543, 552 (1987) (the prosecutor’s comment during rebuttal that defense counsel was setting up a “smoke screen” was a proper response to defense counsel’s closing argument).	2	2
In Re Christenberrygreen illappct · 1979 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Because of the possible collateral legal consequences to respondent father in the context of juvenile proceedings (see 705 ILCS 405/2-18(3) (West 2000) (prior neglect adjudication is admissible in subsequent proceedings); 705 ILCS 405/2-33 (West 2000) (a supplemental petition may be filed reinstating wardship and reopening the case)), we agree with respondent father that this appeal should not be dismissed for mootness (see In re Christenberry, 69 Ill.App.3d 565, 566-67 , 26 Ill.Dec. 93 , 387 N.E.2d 923, 925 (1979)). 2002Because of the possible collateral legal consequences to respondent father in the context of juvenile proceedings (see 705 ILCS 405/2-18(3) (West 2000) (prior neglect adjudication is admissible in subsequent proceedings); 705 ILCS 405/2-33 (West 2000) (a supplemental petition may be filed reinstating wardship and reopening the case)), we agree with respondent father that this appeal should not be dismissed for mootness (see In re Christenberry, 69 Ill.App.3d 565, 566-67 , 26 Ill.Dec. 93 , 387 N.E.2d 923, 925 (1979)).	1	2
People v. Glaspergreen ill · 2009 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401, 441 (1993) (“The prosecutor may also respond to comments made by defense counsel - 12 - No. 1-24-0194 which clearly invite a response”); People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 207 (2009) (finding no error where the State’s argument was made in response to counsel’s attempt to convince the jury that portions of a witness’s testimony were not credible). ¶ 40 We find our supreme court’s decision in Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401 instructive.	1	1
People v. Frenchgreen illappct · 2017 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See French, 2017 IL App (1st) 141815, ¶ 48 .	1	1
People v. Atkinsongreen ill · 1999 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d at 462 (citing People v. Williams, 173 Ill. 2d 48, 83 (1996) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to bar the State from impeaching the defendant's credibility with evidence of his prior conviction for aggravated battery where the defendant was on trial for murder and aggravated battery with a firearm)).Thus, we cannot say the trial court’s decision to admit the UUWF amounted to an abuse of discretion, as it was not unreasonable for the court to find that the conviction was probative of defendant's credibility in	1	1
People v. Williamsgreen ill · 1996 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d at 462 (citing People v. Williams, 173 Ill. 2d 48, 83 (1996) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to bar the State from impeaching the defendant's credibility with evidence of his prior conviction for aggravated battery where the defendant was on trial for murder and aggravated battery with a firearm)).Thus, we cannot say the trial court’s decision to admit the UUWF amounted to an abuse of discretion, as it was not unreasonable for the court to find that the conviction was probative of defendant's credibility in	1	1
People v. Prestongreen ill · 1979 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985); People v. Preston, 76 Ill. 2d 274, 283-84 (1979). 2009People v. Cowan, 105 Ill.2d 324, 328 , 85 Ill.Dec. 502 , 473 N.E.2d 1307 (1985); People v. Preston, 76 Ill.2d 274, 283-84 , 29 Ill.Dec. 96 , 391 N.E.2d 359 (1979).	1	1
People v. Cowangreen ill · 1985 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985); People v. Preston, 76 Ill. 2d 274, 283-84 (1979). 2009People v. Cowan, 105 Ill.2d 324, 328 , 85 Ill.Dec. 502 , 473 N.E.2d 1307 (1985); People v. Preston, 76 Ill.2d 274, 283-84 , 29 Ill.Dec. 96 , 391 N.E.2d 359 (1979).	1	1
People v. Mahaffeygreen ill · 1989 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Robbinsgreen ill · 1895 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
City of Mound City v. Masongreen ill · 1914 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1

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 (42)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Carruthers neutral illappct · 1974 2 sentences 1983It has been held that where a prosecutor’s comments on defendant’s failure to testify are in the form of a response to defense counsel’s comments in closing argument, “defendant may not predicate error on a response by the prosecutor which he himself provoked.” (People v. Carruthers (1974), 18 Ill. 1978We agree with earlier cases holding that: “Where the prosecutor’s remarks concerning defendant’s failure to testify are in the form of a response to defense counsel’s comments in closing argument, ‘defendant may not predicate error on a response by the prosecutor which he himself provoked.’ People v. Carruthers (1974), 18 Ill.	3	1976–1983
The Solid Waste Agency of Lake County v. Zion Landfill, Inc. green illappct · 2026 2 sentences 2026He stated that the letter was a response to her inquiry regarding “whether contaminated soil that is used as an alternate daily cover material is subject to the solid waste tipping fees described in Sections 22.15 and 22.44 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.” He explained that contaminated soil that “meets the Act’s definition of ‘pollution control waste’ ” is “exempt from the tipping fees pursuant to Sections 22.15(k)(2) and 22.44(c)(2) of the Act, regardless of whether it is used as daily cover.” He clarified, “The pollution control waste exemption applies even if the contaminated 2026He stated that the letter was a response to her inquiry regarding “whether contaminated soil that is used as an alternate daily cover material is subject to the solid waste tipping fees described in Sections 22.15 and 22.44 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.” He explained that contaminated soil that “meets the Act’s definition of ‘pollution control waste’ ” is “exempt from the tipping fees pursuant to Sections 22.15(k)(2) and 22.44(c)(2) of the Act, regardless of whether it is used as daily cover.” He clarified, “The pollution control waste exemption applies even if the contaminated	2	2026–2026
People v. Krankel green ill · 1984 2 sentences 2021He continued to claim that the locked bedroom was not his and that he never allowed the police to search his residence. ¶ 25 Citing to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), the trial court requested a response from defense counsel. 2020He continued to claim that the locked bedroom was not his and that he never allowed the police to search his residence. ¶ 25 Citing to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), the trial court requested a response from defense counsel.	2	2020–2021
People v. Childs green ill · 1994 2 sentences 1995"For many years, it was a strict rule that any ex parte communication whatsoever by the judge or a third person with the jury was plain error, despite that there was no improper motive or effect on the jury [citation], regardless of the correctness of the response or instruction to the jury, or whether actual prejudice was demonstrated [citations].” (People v. Childs (1994), 159 Ill. 2d 217, 227 , 636 N.E.2d 534 .) The modern and more flexible rule, however, is that a jury verdict need not be set aside where it is apparent that no injury or prejudice resulted from a communication to the jury e 1995"For many years, it was a strict rule that any ex parte communication whatsoever by the judge or a third person with the jury was plain error, despite that there was no improper motive or effect on the jury [citation], regardless of the correctness of the response or instruction to the jury, or whether actual prejudice was demonstrated [citations].” (People v. Childs (1994), 159 Ill. 2d 217, 227 , 636 N.E.2d 534 .) The modern and more flexible rule, however, is that a jury verdict need not be set aside where it is apparent that no injury or prejudice resulted from a communication to the jury e	2	1994–1995
People v. Smith green illappct · 1982 2 sentences 1988(See People v. Smith (1982), 111 Ill. 1984App. 3d 140 , 463 N.E.2d 929 ), his comments therein must be based upon evidence or the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom (People v. Terry (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 508 , 460 N.E.2d 746 ); however, defense counsel cannot invite or provoke a response and then claim that defendant was prejudiced thereby (People v. Smith (1982), 111 Ill.	2	1984–1988
People v. Conner green illappct · 1976 2 sentences 1983App. 3d 255, 267 , 309 N.E.2d 659, 668 ; People v. Conner (1976), 42 Ill. 1978App. 3d 255, 267 , 309 N.E.2d 659, 668 .” People v. Conner (1st Dist. 1976), 42 Ill.	2	1978–1983
People v. Kirchner green ill · 2000 1 sentence 2026Rather, as noted, the State’s comments were a response to defense counsel’s argument that the “right thing” to do in this case was find Mr. Truman not guilty - 13 - No. 1-24-0194 where, in the State’s view, there was adequate evidence to find him guilty where he failed to do the “right thing.” ¶ 42 We find Mr. Truman’s reliance on People v. Emerson, 97 Ill. 2d 487 (1983) and People v. Monroe, 66 Ill. 2d 317 (1977) unpersuasive where those cases “involved direct references to defense counsel and repeated accusations of deceit.” (Emphasis added.) Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d at 551 .	1	2026–2026
People v. Emerson green ill · 1983 1 sentence 2026Rather, as noted, the State’s comments were a response to defense counsel’s argument that the “right thing” to do in this case was find Mr. Truman not guilty - 13 - No. 1-24-0194 where, in the State’s view, there was adequate evidence to find him guilty where he failed to do the “right thing.” ¶ 42 We find Mr. Truman’s reliance on People v. Emerson, 97 Ill. 2d 487 (1983) and People v. Monroe, 66 Ill. 2d 317 (1977) unpersuasive where those cases “involved direct references to defense counsel and repeated accusations of deceit.” (Emphasis added.) Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d at 551 .	1	2026–2026
People v. Monroe green ill · 1977 1 sentence 2026Rather, as noted, the State’s comments were a response to defense counsel’s argument that the “right thing” to do in this case was find Mr. Truman not guilty - 13 - No. 1-24-0194 where, in the State’s view, there was adequate evidence to find him guilty where he failed to do the “right thing.” ¶ 42 We find Mr. Truman’s reliance on People v. Emerson, 97 Ill. 2d 487 (1983) and People v. Monroe, 66 Ill. 2d 317 (1977) unpersuasive where those cases “involved direct references to defense counsel and repeated accusations of deceit.” (Emphasis added.) Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d at 551 .	1	2026–2026
People v. Pendleton green ill · 2006 1 sentence 2025Neither postconviction counsel amended defendant’s successive petition or moved to withdraw from defendant’s case. ¶ 32 As pointed out by our supreme court in Pendleton, “ ‘post conviction counsel is only required to investigate and properly present the petitioner’s claims.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 472 (quoting Davis, 156 Ill. 2d at 164).	1	2025–2025
People Ex Rel. Devine v. Murphy green ill · 1998 1 sentence 2024Devine v. Murphy, 181 Ill. 2d 522 , 534 n.1 (1998).	1	2024–2024
People v. Alexander green illappct · 2019 1 sentence 2021Alexander, 2019 IL App (3d) 160709, ¶ 11 . ¶ 23 On appeal, the defendant argued that the court’s response was error because it introduced a new theory—constructive possession—into the case, and we agreed.	1	2021–2021
People v. Aguirre green illappct · 1997 1 sentence 2020Aguirre, 291 Ill.	1	2020–2020
People v. Sebby green ill · 2017 1 sentence 2020However, “[t]he initial analytical step under either prong of the plain error doctrine is determining whether there was a clear or obvious error at trial.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 49 . ¶ 83 When the complained-of comment is viewed in context, we find the comment was a proper response to defense counsel’s repeated arguments that Peak and Williams were untrustworthy because they had prior felony convictions as well as the specific reference to Williams as a “criminal.” The prosecutor’s comment, “This guy is the criminal.	1	2020–2020
People v. Hart green ill · 2005 2 sentences 2006Hart, 214 Ill. 2d at 511-12 . 2006Hart, 214 Ill.2d at 511-12 , 293 Ill.Dec. 290 , 828 N.E.2d 260 .	1	2006–2006
People v. Robinson neutral illappct · 1979	1	2002–2002
The People v. McGrane green ill · 1929	1	1994–1994
People v. Morris green illappct · 1980	1	1994–1994
People ex rel. Henderson v. Allen neutral ill · 1896	1	1994–1994
People v. Beck green ill · 1922	1	1994–1994
People v. Thomas green illappct · 1984	1	1993–1993
People v. Jennings green illappct · 1986	1	1993–1993
People v. Giangrande green illappct · 1981	1	1991–1991
People v. Harbold green illappct · 1984	1	1991–1991
People v. Ford green illappct · 1983	1	1990–1990
People v. Schmitt green illappct · 1988	1	1989–1989
People v. Cisewski green ill · 1987	1	1989–1989
People v. Rockman green illappct · 1986	1	1989–1989
People v. Trass green illappct · 1985	1	1989–1989
People v. Cunningham green illappct · 1984	1	1988–1988
People v. Sullivan green ill · 1978	1	1987–1987
People v. Martinez green illappct · 1979	1	1986–1986
People v. Terry green ill · 1984	1	1984–1984
People v. Clay green illappct · 1984	1	1984–1984
People v. Smith neutral illappct · 1982	1	1983–1983
People v. Nash neutral illappct · 1980	1	1982–1982
People v. Dillard green illappct · 1979	1	1982–1982
People v. Benedik green ill · 1974	1	1979–1979
People v. Fleming green illappct · 1975	1	1978–1978
The PEOPLE v. George green ill · 1971	1	1973–1973

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 720 ILCS 5/9-1 (4) IL § 720 ILCS 570/402 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 82 (1979–2024) TX 76 (1984–2026) IL 49 (1973–2026) CA 36 (1884–2025) MI 27 (1980–2026) PA 22 (1990–2025) MA 20 (1985–2025) AL 18 (1916–2013) OK 15 (1938–2011) MD 14 (1968–2021) CO 13 (2005–2026) GA 12 (1981–2026) FL 11 (1928–2025) NJ 10 (1970–2022) CT 9 (1985–2016) DC 8 (1978–2015) WI 8 (1979–2025) OH 8 (1982–2026) MS 7 (1987–2015) WA 7 (2006–2026) OR 5 (1985–2015) UT 5 (1991–2019) KS 5 (1995–2020) MO 5 (1983–2018) AK 4 (1977–2022) TN 4 (1979–2026) ID 4 (2001–2014) ND 4 (1994–2014) MN 3 (1979–2017) IN 3 (1977–2008) LA 3 (1997–1999) WY 2 (1987–2018) VT 2 (2017–2019) NM 2 (2003–2017) KY 2 (2006–2006) NC 2 (1883–2013)

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