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 2 courts 1993–2006 0 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. Milesgreen2 sentences2006In Miles, the appellate court held that A[c]onsistent with the Pomykala analysis, if a statute incorporating the definition of >prima facie= to establish an element of a criminal offense creates a prohibited mandatory presumption, then a statute that uses the object of the definition, that is, >prima facie,= to establish an element is similarly prohibitive.@ Miles, 344 Ill. 2006In Miles, the appellate court held that “[cjonsistent with the Pomykala analysis, if a statute incorporating the definition of ‘prima facie’ to establish an element of a criminal offense creates a prohibited mandatory presumption, then a statute that uses the object of the definition, that is, ‘prima facie,’ to establish an element is similarly prohibitive.” Miles, 344 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Pomykalagreen2 sentences2003The Pomykala court found a prohibited mandatory presumption because the language, that is, the definition of " prima facie, " compelled "a finding of recklessness without any factual connection between the intoxication and the reckless act, unless this presumed connection is disproved." Pomykala, 203 Ill.2d at 208 , 271 Ill.Dec. 230 , 784 N.E.2d 784 . 2003The Pomykala court found a prohibited mandatory presumption because the language, that is, the definition of “prima facie,” compelled “a finding of recklessness without any factual connection between the intoxication and the reckless act, unless this presumed connection is disproved.” Pomykala, 203 Ill. 2d at 208 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
1 sentence1993Ed. 2d 39, 50 , 99 S. Ct. 2450, 2458-59 .) Further, it is urged, the instruction is a prohibited mandatory presumption which directs the jury to infer a presumed fact if the State proves certain predicate facts. | 1 | 1993–1993 |