People v. Armstrong

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Hutson

    2021 Ill. App. 5th 190071 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    ΒΆ 40 In support of his argument, defendant cites both People v. Armstrong, 297 Ill.App.3d 46 (1998), and In re Rolandis G, 232 Ill.2d 13 (2008), for the proposition that a child witness may become unavailable "mid-testimony" if the child is emotionally unable to continue testifying (Armstrong, 297 Ill.App.3d at 48), or if the child refuses to respond to questions about the sexual conduct at issue at trial (Rolandis G, 232 Ill.2d at 18). We note, however, that in the instant case, unlike the children in Armstrong and Rolandis G, N.B. did not become emotionally unable to testify at trial, nor did she refuse to answer questions about defendant's sexual conduct.

  2. People v. Armstrong

    769 N.E.2d 77 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    On direct appeal, this court affirmed. People v. Armstrong, 297 Ill. App. 3d 46 (1998). Defendant filed a pro se petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 1998)), seeking relief on a variety of grounds.

  3. People v. Armstrong

    317 Ill. App. 3d 877 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    On direct appeal, this court affirmed. People v. Armstrong, 297 Ill. App.3d 46 (1998). Defendant filed a pro se petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 1998)), seeking relief on a variety of grounds.