People v. Bryant

27 Citing cases

  1. People v. Silvestri

    500 N.E.2d 456 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the victim declarant's statement was admissible to show her intention of meeting the defendant on the thirteenth floor of a building

    The State urges that Heilmann's statement is admissible as an exception, and is relevant because it demonstrates the victim's state of mind. Statements indicating a declarant's state of mind are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable and there exists a reasonable probability that the testimony is truthful. ( People v. Floyd (1984), 103 Ill.2d 541, 470 N.E.2d 293; People v. Bryant (1984), 123 Ill. App.3d 266, 462 N.E.2d 780.) Such statements, however, must be relevant to a material issue in the case.

  2. People v. Hernandez

    773 N.E.2d 170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    "Statements indicating a declarant's state of mind are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable and there exists a reasonable probability that the testimony is truthful. ( People v. Floyd (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 541, 470 N.E.2d 293; People v. Bryant (1984), 123 Ill. App. 3d 266, 462 N.E.2d 780.) Such statements, however, must be relevant to a material issue in the case.

  3. People v. Miller

    259 Ill. App. 3d 257 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    Despite our reservations about defendant's entitlement to the refused instruction, based upon his failure to supply the intent required by it, if we were to conclude that the circuit court erred in refusing the instruction, any such error was harmless. It is well established that error in giving or refusing instructions is harmless and will not warrant reversal where the evidence of the defendant's guilt is overwhelming, and it is evident that the jury could not reasonably have found defendant not guilty. ( People v. Jones (1979), 81 Ill.2d 1, 9, 405 N.E.2d 343; People v. Velasco (1989), 184 Ill. App.3d 618, 633, 540 N.E.2d 521; People v. Bryant (1984), 123 Ill. App.3d 266, 274, 463 N.E.2d 700.) Where the result of the trial would not have been different if the instruction had been given, the refusal to give the instruction is held to be harmless. Bryant, 123 Ill. App.3d at 274.

  4. People v. Winters

    151 Ill. App. 3d 402 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 32 times

    " ( People v. Trinkle (1977), 68 Ill.2d 198, 202.) Intent to kill an individual is an essential element of the offense of attempted murder ( People v. Johnson (1984), 123 Ill. App.3d 1008; People v. Bryant (1984), 123 Ill. App.3d 266); an intent to accomplish only great bodily harm is insufficient for the offense of attempted murder ( People v. Childs (1981), 101 Ill. App.3d 374). • 3-5 Intent is a state of mind which, if not admitted, can be established by proof of surrounding circumstances, including the character of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon, and other matters from which an intent to kill may be inferred. ( People v. Koshiol (1970), 45 Ill.2d 573, cert. denied (1971), 401 U.S. 978, 28 L.Ed.2d 329, 91 S.Ct. 1209; People v. Maxwell (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 212.)

  5. People v. Loggins

    134 Ill. App. 3d 684 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 38 times
    In Loggins, this court found the admissibility of a statement proper where it was used to demonstrate the continuity of police investigations.

    ) A police officer may properly testify to the circumstances of an investigation to explain a witness' subsequent conduct, such as how that witness came to identify the defendant. People v. Bryant (1984), 123 Ill. App.3d 266, 462 N.E.2d 780. Here, investigating officers testified that they received defendant's license plate number from two eyewitnesses and that a computer check of the plate revealed that the car was registered to defendant.

  6. People v. Dragan

    2023 Ill. App. 221055 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    The specific intent to kill is an essential element of the crime of attempted murder. People v. Gentry, 157 Ill.App.3d 899, 902 (1987) (citing People v. Bryant, 123 Ill.App.3d 266 (1984)). "Knowledge that the consequences of an accused's act may result in death (or grave bodily injury), or intent to do bodily harm, is not enough; specific intent to kill is required." People v. Jones, 81 Ill.2d 1, 8-9 (1979) (citing People v. Trinkle, 68 Ill.2d 198, 201-04 (1977)).

  7. People v. Whatley

    2020 Ill. App. 163179 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Courts have also considered the number of shots, range, and the general target area in assessing intent. People v. Bryant, 123 Ill. App. 3d 266, 274 (1984). "The jury is tasked with determining whether a specific intent to kill exists, and its conclusion will not be disturbed absent reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt."

  8. People v. Torres

    2019 Ill. App. 151276 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    For an attempted murder charge, courts consider the number of shots, range and the general target area in assessing the strength of intent evidence. People v. Bryant , 123 Ill. App. 3d 266, 274, 78 Ill.Dec. 661, 462 N.E.2d 780 (1984). We have even held that " ‘[t[ ]he very fact of firing a gun at a person supports the conclusion that the person doing so acted with an intent to kill.’ "

  9. People v. Harvey

    2019 Ill. App. 171147 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Courts have also considered the number of shots, range, and the general target area in assessing intent. People v. Bryant, 123 Ill. App. 3d 266, 274 (1984). ¶ 30

  10. People v. Torres

    2019 Ill. App. 160462 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    People v. Ephraim, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1097, 1110 (2001). Courts have also considered the number of shots, range, and the general target area in assessing intent. People v. Bryant, 123 Ill. App. 3d 266, 274 (1984). ¶ 29 After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that defendant intended to kill Abraham. The record shows that Abraham and his friends, including defendant, were drinking beer in the back yard. There was no evidence presented that anyone was arguing with defendant or threatening him. At some point, defendant left the yard, went to his home, and returned a short time later.