State objected defense in Illinois

2025In its ruling, the court pointed to People v. Littleton, 2014 IL App (1st) 121950 , ¶ 69, for the position that evidence of a prior offense, of which defendant was acquitted, could be considered to prove defendant’s identity in a subsequent trial.

2024People v. Staake, 2017 IL 121755, ¶ 51 . ¶ 61 Our review of the record reveals that there was a sidebar outside of the presence of the jury after the State objected to defense counsel’s attempt to question Rachel about her previous - 24 - No. 1-22-0173 convictions.

2015Crawford, 343 Ill.

1989This court noted in O’Neal that “ ‘specific objections waive all grounds not specified ***.’ [Citation.]” ( 104 Ill. 2d at 407 .) This court then went on to note the important policy considerations of the waiver doctrine, all of which are applicable to the case now before us: “ ‘[T]he [waiver] rule is founded on some rather basic considerations, which include the following: that litigation should not be presented piecemeal; and that all parties are entitled to have matters determined as quickly as possible and at one trial, if possible.

1984While cross-examining Investigator O’Leary, defense counsel sought to attack the validity of the consent-to-search form by eliciting testimony that the form read “2402 East 78 Street,” rather than “2409.” The State objected to defense counsel’s line of questioning by noting that “2409 East 78th Street, you [the court] made that determination. *** You ruled on that motion.” In response to a second attempt by defense counsel to point out the discrepancy between the true address and the address on the consent-to-search form, the State objected and said “you [the court] ruled on the authority [to

1984App. 3d 406 , 392 N.E.2d 188 .

1974The sole issue raised on appeal concerns the trial court’s refusal to conduct a bench trial when defendant expressly waived a jury trial and the State objected to this waiver,', : - ' In People v. Spegal, 5 Ill.2d 211 , 125 N.E.2d 468 , the supreme póüft held that amendments to the Criminal Code in 1941, providing that when a defendant pleads guilty or waives a jury the cause shall be heard and determined by the court without a jury, gave a defendant an absolute right to be tried by the court, even over the objection of the People.

1974The sole issue raised on appeal concerns the trial court’s refusal to conduct a bench trial when defendant expressly waived a jury trial and the State objected to this waiver,', : - ' In People v. Spegal, 5 Ill.2d 211 , 125 N.E.2d 468 , the supreme póüft held that amendments to the Criminal Code in 1941, providing that when a defendant pleads guilty or waives a jury the cause shall be heard and determined by the court without a jury, gave a defendant an absolute right to be tried by the court, even over the objection of the People.