commonsense analysis in Illinois

2024To satisfy the first prong, defendant must “show that the error was prejudicial—in other words, he must show that the quantum of evidence presented by the State against the defendant rendered the evidence ‘closely balanced.’ ” Id. at 566 (citing People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 193 (2005)). “[A] reviewing court must undertake a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context when reviewing a claim under the first prong of the plain error doctrine.” Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 .

2024To meet his burden, defendant must “show that the error was prejudicial—in other words, he must show that the quantum of evidence presented by the State against the defendant rendered the evidence ‘closely balanced.’ ” Id. at 566 (citing People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 193 (2005)). “[A] reviewing court must undertake a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context when reviewing a claim under the first prong of the plain error doctrine.” Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 .

2021The evidence presented in a case is not deemed to be closely balanced merely because it turns on conflicting witness testimony. “[A] reviewing court must undertake a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context when reviewing a claim under the first prong of the plain error doctrine.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 ; see also People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168, ¶ 22 ; People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 139 (where defendant claimed the evidence was so closely balanced that it necessitated review of an error, the court held that a qualitative—as opposed to strictly quantitative—comm

2015The State further argues that the evidence is not closely balanced in this case, but that even if it is, reversal is not appropriate unless the Rule 431(b) error likely had some impact on the jury’s verdict. ¶ 50 The parties are correct that a reviewing court must undertake a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context when reviewing a claim under the first prong of the plain error doctrine. ¶ 51 People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168 , is an example of this court’s application of a contextual analysis of the evidence under a claim of plain error.

2021The evidence presented in a case is not deemed to be closely balanced merely because it turns on conflicting witness testimony. “[A] reviewing court must undertake a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context when reviewing a claim under the first prong of the plain error doctrine.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 ; see also People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168, ¶ 22 ; People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 139 (where defendant claimed the evidence was so closely balanced that it necessitated review of an error, the court held that a qualitative—as opposed to strictly quantitative—comm

2015While defendant correctly states a holding of Naylor, our supreme recently stated that “a reviewing court must undertake a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context when reviewing a claim under the first prong of the plain error doctrine.” Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 ; see also People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168, ¶ 22 ; People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 139 (where defendant claimed the evidence was so closely balanced that it necessitated review of an error, the court held that a qualitative—as opposed to strictly quantitative—commonsense assessment of the evidence demonstrated it wa

2025When reviewing a claim under the first prong, we apply “a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context.” Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 .

2025In multiple video clips, Murry wore a hoodie despite Charles’s testimony that it was a hot August night. ¶ 81 “[U]ndertak[ing] a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context” (Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 ), we do not find that the evidence was “closely balanced.” Therefore, the trial court’s failure to comply with Rule 431(b) does not warrant a reversal or a remand for a new trial. - 20 - ¶ 82 Leading Questions and Prior Statements ¶ 83 Leading Questions ¶ 84 Murry argues the trial court denied him a fair trial by repeatedly allowing the State to introduce key facts through leading qu

2016See Lachenmyer v. Didrickson, 263 Ill.

2016See Lachenmyer v. Didrickson, 263 Ill.

2024“Where a case does not involve competing witnesses and the jurors are not asked to determine ‘relative credibility,’ the factfinder’s responsibility to assess witness credibility does not automatically make the evidence closely balanced.” People v. Scott, 2020 IL App (1st) 180200, ¶ 51 (citing People v. Hammonds, 409 Ill.

2024“Where a case does not involve competing witnesses and the jurors are not asked to determine ‘relative credibility,’ the factfinder’s responsibility to assess witness credibility does not automatically make the 12 No. 1-22-1261 evidence closely balanced.” People v. Scott, 2020 IL App (1st) 180200, ¶ 51 (citing People v. Hammonds, 409 Ill.

2024“Where a case does not involve competing witnesses and the jurors are not asked to determine ‘relative credibility,’ the factfinder’s responsibility to assess witness credibility does not automatically make the evidence closely balanced.” People v. Scott, 2020 IL App (1st) 180200, ¶ 51 (citing People v. Hammonds, 409 Ill.

2024“Where a case does not involve competing witnesses and the jurors are not asked to determine ‘relative credibility,’ the factfinder’s responsibility to assess witness credibility does not automatically make the 12 No. 1-22-1261 evidence closely balanced.” People v. Scott, 2020 IL App (1st) 180200, ¶ 51 (citing People v. Hammonds, 409 Ill.

2025This entails “an assessment of the evidence on the elements of the charged offense or offenses, along with any evidence regarding the witnesses’ credibility.” Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 53 . ¶ 60 We have already analyzed the quantum of evidence against defendant in our discussion of defendant’s jury instruction claim and do no reiterate it here.

2024The inquiry involves “an assessment of the evidence on the elements of the charged offense or offenses, along with any evidence regarding the witnesses’ credibility.” Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 53 .

2023Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1188 . “[A] court’s focus should be on the totality of the circumstances, and even potentially innocent conduct may give rise to reasonable suspicion when aggregated.” Sadeq, 2018 IL App (4th) 160105 , ¶ 94 33 (citing United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-75 (2002)).

2023See Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶¶ 30, 32 . 6 ¶ 17 To determine if the evidence is closely balanced, “a reviewing court must undertake a commonsense analysis of all the evidence in context.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 50 .

2020See Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶¶ 61-63 (evidence is closely balanced where the outcome turns on the resolution of a “ ‘contest of credibility,’ ” both sides offer credible versions of events, and neither version is supported by corroborating evidence); People v. Evans, 369 Ill.

2009See Gancarz, 369 Ill.App.3d at 180 , 307 Ill.Dec. 450 , 859 N.E.2d at 1151 (citing Lee, 213 Ill.2d at 228 , 290 Ill.Dec. 256 , 821 N.E.2d at 313 ).

2009See Gancarz, 369 Ill.App.3d at 180 , 307 Ill.Dec. 450 , 859 N.E.2d at 1151 (citing Lee, 213 Ill.2d at 228 , 290 Ill.Dec. 256 , 821 N.E.2d at 313 ).

2009See Gancarz, 369 Ill.

2009See Gancarz, 369 Ill.App.3d at 180 , 307 Ill.Dec. 450 , 859 N.E.2d at 1151 (citing Lee, 213 Ill.2d at 228 , 290 Ill.Dec. 256 , 821 N.E.2d at 313 ).