People v. Scott

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. White

    311 Ill. App. 3d 374 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 34 times
    Finding Williams was wrongly decided and holding "though simultaneous, defendant's possession of the gun was an act distinct from defendant's possession of the drugs"

    This court has also sanctioned the use of judicial notice to prove a prior conviction.People v. Scott, 278 Ill. App.3d 468, 475, 663 N.E.2d 97, 102 (1996). Despite the holdings in Davis and Scott, defendant first argues that judicial notice was inappropriate here because his prior felony conviction was an element of the offense that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. People v. Smith

    2021 Ill. App. 190421 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 7 times

    Id. While a sound basis exists for concluding that the doctrine of judicial notice would include records kept by the clerk of the circuit court, particularly where these offenses were all committed in Cook County (see People v. Scott, 278 Ill.App.3d 468, 475 (1996)), a trial court is prohibited from taking judicial notice of facts sua sponte after the close of evidence (see People v. Barham, 337 Ill.App.3d 1121, 1129 (2003)). "When a defendant in a criminal case waives trial by jury and submits his rights and liberty to a judge, that judge is in the identical position of the jury and all the recognized rules for the protection of the defendant's rights apply with equal force."

  3. Jacob R.Y. v. Debra Y. (In re Adoption of J.R.Y.)

    2020 IL App (3d) 190681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    "Allegations arising from matters of judgment or trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." People v. Scott, 278 Ill. App. 3d 468, 473 (1996). ΒΆ 35 A

  4. People v. Messenger

    2015 Ill. App. 3d 130581 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 15 times

    The Illinois courts, however, have regularly sanctioned the use of judicial notice to establish an element of the offense. Davis, 65 Ill. 2d at 165; People v. Scott, 278 Ill. App. 3d 468, 475 (1996); White, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 380; Hill, 409 Ill. App. 3d at 456. We reiterate the Davis court's expansion of judicial notice for this purpose, as discussed in White: