Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Alvidrez

No. 1-12-1740 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Alvidrez

40 Citing cases

  1. People v. Anaya

    2017 Ill. App. 150074 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 34 times

    We have previously made this same observation in several cases, including People v. Sandifer , 2016 IL App (1st) 133397, ¶ 54, 408 Ill.Dec. 493, 65 N.E.3d 969 ("The standard of review for closing arguments is currently unclear."); People v. Alvidrez , 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 26, 386 Ill.Dec. 801, 21 N.E.3d 720 ; People v. Land , 2011 IL App (1st) 101048, ¶¶ 149–51, 353 Ill.Dec. 71, 955 N.E.2d 538 ; and People v. Phillips , 392 Ill. App. 3d 243, 274–75, 331 Ill.Dec. 641, 911 N.E.2d 462 (2009). The Second District Appellate Court has agreed with our observation that the standard of review for closing remarks is an unsettled issue.

  2. People v. Washington

    2018 Ill. App. 143636 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    The State responds that defendant forfeited this issue and even forfeiture aside, there was no error, let alone any plain error. See People v. Alvidrez, 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 25 (noting, there can be no plain error if there was no error at all). We agree.

  3. People v. Walls

    223 N.E.3d 1055 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    The prosecutor may also respond to comments by defense counsel that clearly invite a response. People v. Alvidrez, 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 26, 386 Ill.Dec. 801, 21 N.E.3d 720. However, a prosecutor must refrain from making improper, prejudicial comments and arguments.

  4. People v. Jackson

    No. 1-15-1515 (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 29, 2019)

    While the parties disagree on the standard of review, we need not resolve the matter because our holding in this case would be the same under either de novo review or an abuse of discretion. See People v. Alvidrez, 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 26; but see People v. Cook, 2018 IL App (1st) 142134, ¶¶ 61-64 (finding the standard of review clear). That is, viewing the remarks in the context of the entire closing argument, as we must, we conclude there was no reversible error committed for the following reasons.

  5. People v. Green

    2017 Ill. App. 152513 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    We have previously made this same observation in several cases, including People v. Sandifer , 2016 IL App (1st) 133397, ¶ 54, 408 Ill.Dec. 493, 65 N.E.3d 969 ("The standard of review for closing arguments is currently unclear."); People v. Alvidrez , 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 26, 386 Ill.Dec. 801, 21 N.E.3d 720 ; People v. Land , 2011 IL App (1st) 101048, ¶¶ 149–51, 353 Ill.Dec. 71, 955 N.E.2d 538 ; and People v. Phillips , 392 Ill. App. 3d 243, 274–75, 331 Ill.Dec. 641, 911 N.E.2d 462 (2009). The Second District Appellate Court has agreed with our observation that the standard of review for closing remarks is an unsettled issue.

  6. People v. Henderson

    2016 Ill. App. 142259 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 31 times
    Noting that the issue remains divided

    We have previously made this same observation in several cases, including People v. Sandifer , 2016 IL App (1st) 133397, ¶ 54, 408 Ill.Dec. 493, 65 N.E.3d 969 ("The standard of review for closing arguments is currently unclear."); People v. Alvidrez , 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 26, 386 Ill.Dec. 801, 21 N.E.3d 720 ; People v. Land , 2011 IL App (1st) 101048, ¶¶ 149–51, 353 Ill.Dec. 71, 955 N.E.2d 538 ; and People v. Phillips , 392 Ill.App.3d 243, 274–75, 331 Ill.Dec. 641, 911 N.E.2d 462 (2009). The Second District Appellate Court has agreed with our observation that the standard of review for closing remarks is an unsettled issue.

  7. People v. James

    2021 Ill. App. 180509 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 13 times

    Objections to closing argument must be made at trial to be preserved for review. People v. Alvidrez, 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 25. Raising some or all the issues in a posttrial motion is insufficient to preserve them for appeal.

  8. People v. Martin

    2020 Ill. App. 162645 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    In support of this contention, defendant points to a number of Illinois "shaken baby" cases wherein experts were presented by the defense. See People v. Schuit, 2016 IL App (1st) 150312; Klein, 2015 IL App (3d) 130052; People v. Alvidrez, 2014 IL App (1st) 121740; People v. Sanders, 368 Ill. App. 3d 533 (2006). None of the cases hold or suggest, however, that the failure to present an expert witness constitutes per se ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

  9. People v. Bell

    2014 Ill. App. 123570 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    People v. Wilson, 2014 IL App (1st) 113570, ¶ 47. "Even if a prosecutor's closing remarks are improper, they do not constitute reversible error unless they result in substantial prejudice to the defendant such that absent those remarks the verdict would have been different." People v. Alvidrez, 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 26. "A new trial should be granted if the jury could have reached a contrary verdict had the improper remarks not been made, or the reviewing court cannot say that the prosecutor's improper remarks did not contribute to the defendant's conviction. [Citation.

  10. People v. Walls

    2022 Ill. App. 200167 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    The prosecutor may also respond to comments by defense counsel that clearly invite a response. People v. Alvidrez, 2014 IL App (1st) 121740, ¶ 26. However, a prosecutor must refrain from making improper, prejudicial comments and arguments.