People v. Boyd

16 Citing cases

  1. People v. Lamacki

    459 N.E.2d 1142 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 7 times

    • 8 "Whether evidence proffered by a defendant is relevant is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court." ( People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 263, 401 N.E.2d 304.) The trial court may reject evidence which it determines to be "of little probative value because of its remoteness, uncertainty, or conjectural nature."

  2. People v. Ward

    101 Ill. 2d 443 (Ill. 1984)   Cited 245 times
    Holding that involuntary manslaughter instruction was unwarranted where evidence showed that savagely brutal beating of four-year-old victim with mop handle resulted in bruises to the chest muscles, lungs, and brain and were too numerous to be counted

    A trial court may reject offered evidence on grounds of irrelevancy if it has little probative value due to its remoteness, uncertainty or its possibly unfair prejudicial nature. ( People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 263; Hagerman v. National Food Stores, Inc. (1972), 5 Ill. App.3d 439, 441.) The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling should not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. Veer v. Hagemann (1929), 334 Ill. 23, 28; Bosel v. Marriott Corp. (1978), 65 Ill. App.3d 649, 654; Fullerton v. Robson (1978), 61 Ill. App.3d 93, 96.

  3. People v. Makiel

    263 Ill. App. 3d 54 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 15 times
    Holding mere acceptance of counsel for extradition insufficient to invoke right to counsel on underlying criminal charge

    The testimony would place Jay at the crime scene near the time of the murder with a gun of the kind used to kill Hoch. The testimony did not concern events remote in time or place, and jurors would not need to speculate to connect the shot Anderson said he heard to this crime. (See People v. Wilson (1986), 149 Ill. App.3d 293, 500 N.E.2d 128, appeal denied (1987), 113 Ill.2d 584, 505 N.E.2d 360; People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 263, 401 N.E.2d 304.) Although the circuit court has wide discretion for deciding whether evidence is relevant, the circuit court here failed to take adequate steps to determine relevance. The circuit court's comments indicate that it relied on the impeachment evidence the State claimed to have.

  4. People v. Dobrino

    227 Ill. App. 3d 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 6 times

    A trial court may reject offered evidence on grounds of irrelevance if it has little probative value due to its remoteness, uncertainty or its possibly unfair, prejudicial nature. ( People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 263, 401 N.E.2d 304.) The admission of evidence in criminal trials is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling should not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.

  5. People v. Schuldt

    217 Ill. App. 3d 534 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 16 times
    Holding evidence not properly barred by the rape-shield statute "remain subject to standards of relevancy"

    ( People v. Kavinsky (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 579, 424 N.E.2d 340.) Whether evidence offered by a defendant is relevant is a determination within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 401 N.E.2d 304. • 3 Here, we find that the neighbors' awareness of the defendant's apartment on the night following the attack was not indicative of their general awareness of the defendant's apartment.

  6. People v. Wright

    218 Ill. App. 3d 764 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 31 times
    In People v. Wright (1991), 218 Ill. App.3d 764, 773, the defendant was convicted of attempted burglary in October and November 1985, as well as in March 1986, for which he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

    A trial court, however, may reject offered evidence on the grounds of irrelevancy if such evidence has little probative value due to its remoteness, uncertainty or its possibly unfair prejudicial nature. ( People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 263, 401 N.E.2d 304, 308.) Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the question of guilt more or less probable.

  7. People v. Ashley

    207 Ill. App. 3d 984 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    A trial court has the prerogative to reject offered evidence on the grounds of irrelevancy if it has little probative value due to its remoteness, uncertainty, or its conjectural nature. ( People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 263, 401 N.E.2d 304, 308.) Most importantly, the admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse.

  8. People v. Moore

    199 Ill. App. 3d 747 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 30 times

    People v. Martin (1970), 46 Ill.2d 565, 567, 264 N.E.2d 147, 148; People v. Preston (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 162, 179-80, 376 N.E.2d 299, 311; see also Miller v. Pate (1967), 386 U.S. 1, 7, 17 L.Ed.2d 690, 694, 87 S.Ct. 785, 788; Napue v. Illinois (1959), 360 U.S. 264, 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217, 1221, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177; Alcorta v. Texas (1957), 355 U.S. 28, 31, 2 L.Ed.2d 9, 11, 78 S.Ct. 103, 105; Mooney v. Holohan (1935), 294 U.S. 103, 112, 79 L.Ed. 791, 794, 55 S.Ct. 340, 342; 98 A.L.R. 406, 409-10 (1964). It is essential that to commit perjury the witness must know that the statements being made are false. ( People v. Drake (1978), 63 Ill. App.3d 633, 635, 380 N.E.2d 522, 524; People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 261, 401 N.E.2d 304, 307.) Here defendant offers no proof that the statements are false, merely presenting conclusory allegations which cannot support a charge of perjury.

  9. People v. Hunley

    545 N.E.2d 188 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 18 times
    In People v. Hunley, 189 Ill. App. 3d 24, 44, 545 N.E.2d 188, 201 (1989), the prosecutor failed to inform the jury that the State also had to prove mens rea of intent in a murder case.

    A trial court may reject proffered testimony on grounds of irrelevancy if it has little probative value due to remoteness, uncertainty, or its possibly unfair prejudicial nature. ( People v. Ward (1984), 101 Ill.2d 443, 455, 463 N.E.2d 696; People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 263, 401 N.E.2d 304.) The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.

  10. People v. Gettings

    452 N.E.2d 672 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)

    Defendant first contends that the indictment was insufficient as a matter of law to state an offense because it did not contain an allegation that defendant had knowledge of the falsity of the statements at the time they were made. Defendant relies upon some language from the opinion in People v. Taylor (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 961, 963, 286 N.E.2d 122, 123, where the court said, "Knowledge of the falsity of the statement at the time of the utterance is an essential element of the crime of perjury." (See also People v. Boyd (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 259, 401 N.E.2d 304.) From this language, defendant argues that the indictment in this case was insufficient because it failed to allege that he had "knowledge" of the falsity of his statement but rather it alleged that he did not believe it to be true. In other words, defendant is arguing that an indictment must include the word "knowledge" in order to charge perjury.