People v. Burrington

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Hughes

    11 Ill. App. 3d 224 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 17 times
    In Hughes, the defendant was convicted of burglary and filed a post-trial motion contending that newly discovered evidence of an accomplice, which showed that he was not in the burglarized building at the time of the crime but had lost consciousness in the back seat of the car, warranted the granting of a new trial.

    The burden is upon the applicant to rebut the presumption that the verdict is correct and to show that there has been no lack of diligence. Granting the motion is largely discretionary with the trial court except in case of manifest abuse. ( People v. Holtzman (1954), 1 Ill.2d 562, 569; People v. Baker (1959), 16 Ill.2d 364, 374; People v. Burrington (1968), 101 Ill. App.2d 230, 234-235.) These stringent rules are based on public policy which looks to the finality of trials and therefore requires that parties be held to diligence in preparing their cases for trial. The standards enumerated are not absolute but are guides to the discretion of the trial court.

  2. People v. Johnson

    123 Ill. App. 2d 69 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970)   Cited 11 times

    It must be material to the issue, not merely cumulative; it must have been discovered since the trial and be of such character that it could not have been discovered by exercise of due diligence. People v. Baker, 16 Ill.2d 364, 374, 158 N.E.2d 1; People v. Burrington, 101 Ill. App.2d 230, 242 N.E.2d 433. However, evidence which will only serve the purpose of impeachment is not a justification for granting a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.

  3. People v. Richards

    120 Ill. App. 2d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970)   Cited 46 times
    In People v. Richards (1970), 120 Ill. App.2d 313, 256 N.E.2d 475, a case cited by the State, a blood sample was admitted into evidence even though it was left in a hospital freezer for 17 days without testimony that the freezer was locked, secured or accessible only to authorized personnel.

    The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The People v. Dukes, 19 Ill.2d 532, 538-539, 169 N.E.2d 84 (1960), cert den 365 U.S. 830; The People v. Baker, 16 Ill.2d 364, 373-374, 158 N.E.2d (1959); The People v. LeMorte, 289 Ill. 11, 21-24, 124 N.E. 301 (1919); People v. Burrington, 101 Ill. App.2d 230, 234-235, 242 N.E.2d 433 (1968). Defendant urges that various rulings of the trial court constituted prejudicial error:

  4. People v. Kinzell

    245 N.E.2d 319 (Ill. App. Ct. 1969)   Cited 20 times

    We believe that such conclusion is similarly evident here. People v. Burrington, 101 Ill. App.2d 230, 242 N.E.2d 433 (1968). [4] From this record the jury was justified in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause of death was a blow or blows to the head received by the victim while in the exclusive custody of the defendant.