People v. Charles

13 Citing cases

  1. People v. Mujkovic

    2022 Ill. App. 200717 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 9 times

    ¶ 16 A claim of self-defense puts a defendant's intent directly in issue. See, e.g., People v.Charles, 238 Ill.App.3d 752, 762 (1992) (claiming self-defense made intent "the critical issue" of the case (internal quotation marks omitted)). Intent is among the permissible purposes for admitting other-acts evidence.

  2. People v. Wicks

    2021 Ill. App. 5th 130166 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    The defendant is correct in his assertion that, relying upon Batson and Harris, our colleagues in the First District held that the failure of the State to recall the specific reason that it exercised a peremptory challenge against even one potential juror requires reversal and remand for a new trial, even in situations where the State did provide race-neutral explanations for its peremptory challenges against other potential jurors. People v. Charles, 238 Ill.App.3d 752, 757-58 (1992). As the Charles court noted, various other courts interpreting Batson have agreed, ruling that, inter alia, (1) "not knowing" why a strike was exercised is not the functional equivalent of providing a race-neutral explanation, (2) lack of recollection on the part of the State means that, as a matter of law, the State has failed to rebut the prima facie showing, and (3) only in pre-Batson cases has the Illinois Supreme Court allowed the State to use lack of recollection as an excuse to explain a peremptory challenge, presumably because prior to Batson, the State was not on notice that such an explanation would no longer be acceptable.

  3. Thompson v. Petit

    294 Ill. App. 3d 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 17 times
    Discussing self-defense in a civil case

    The relevance of such evidence derives from the logic that it is far less likely that the defendant in this case was an innocent victim acting out of a belief that his safety was endangered if he was the aggressor in a prior incident under peculiarly similar circumstances.People v. Charles, 238 Ill. App.3d 752, 763, 606 N.E.2d 603 (1992). The fact that evidence of prior acts of misconduct may be relevant to prove something other than propensity does not mean that such evidence should be admitted as a matter of course.

  4. People v. Mays

    254 Ill. App. 3d 752 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 7 times
    In Mays, the trial court's finding that the State rebutted the defendant's prima facie case was held improper because the trial court based its finding solely on reasons not articulated by the State.

    The State cannot rebut defendant's prima facie case without offering the specific reasons why the challenge was exercised. ( People v. Charles (1992), 238 Ill. App.3d 752, 758-59, 606 N.E.2d 603, 607-08.) Additionally, it is unclear whether the trial judge did more than simply determine that the prosecutor's proffered explanation was race-neutral.

  5. People v. Young

    381 Ill. App. 3d 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 21 times

    While an innocent state of mind might be present in one instance, the more often it occurs with similar results, the less likely that it was without criminal intent. See People v. Charles, 238 Ill. App. 3d 752, 761, 606 N.E.2d 603, 610 (1992) (affirming admission of evidence that the defendant shot someone with a shotgun 15 minutes earlier to negate the defendant's assertion of self-defense). In this case, the trial court found the other-crimes evidence should be admitted because defendant was asserting that the stabbing was an accident.

  6. People v. Jackson

    357 Ill. App. 3d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that a limiting instruction was required when the State sought to introduce evidence relating to the defendant's "gang involvement and collateral offenses," but that failure to provide the instruction was harmless in that case

    The evidence relating to defendant's attempts to shoot Linus and Tomiesene was relevant to show defendant's intent to commit murder. People v. Charles, 238 Ill. App. 3d 752, 761-63 (1992). In Charles, the defendant's intent to commit murder could be derived from the fact that he intentionally fired a shotgun into one person's abdomen 15 minutes before he fired the same shotgun into the victim's abdomen.

  7. People v. Bedoya

    325 Ill. App. 3d 926 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 72 times
    Holding testimony that the defendant had fired his gun at three buildings earlier in the evening irrelevant to the question of whether he had intentionally killed the victim

    A defendant's intent to commit murder can be derived from the fact that he intentionally fired a shotgun into one person's abdomen fifteen minutes before he fired the same shotgun into [the victim's] abdomen. People v. Charles, 238 Ill. App.3d 752, 606 N.E.2d 603 (1992). In Charles, the defendant's intent to deliberately fire at a person in a certain way in each instance was similar, to say the least.

  8. People v. Childress

    321 Ill. App. 3d 13 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that section 5-5-3.2(b) of the Code does not violate the United States Constitution

    Finally, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether evidence of other crimes is relevant to a material issue in the case. People v. Charles, 238 Ill. App.3d 752, 760-61, 606 N.E.2d 603 (1992).

  9. Hutchinson v. State

    42 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 11 times
    Holding evidence sufficient to support finding defendant was perpetrator of burglary, despite fact video camera never captured perpetrator's face, because several witnesses who observed the video testified perpetrator had same build and gait as defendant, and hat worn by perpetrator was found in defendant's truck

    The holdings in both Wright v. State, 832 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), and Brooks v. State, 802 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), comport with the disposition of similar factual circumstances in a majority of jurisdictions. See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 713 F. Supp. 165 (M.D.N.C. 1988); People v. Charles, 606 N.E.2d 603 (Ill.App.Ct. 1992); Tolbert v. State, 553 A.2d 228 (Md. 1988); People v. Blunt, 574 N.Y.S.2d 812 (N.Y.App. Div. 1991); State v. Brock, 675 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).See Rousseau v. State, 824 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), and Brooks v. State, 802 S.W.2d 692, two cases where this procedure was followed.

  10. People v. Plummer

    318 Ill. App. 3d 268 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    In Plummer, the defendant, who had been convicted of murder, filed a postconviction petition alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to request a continuance to obtain the mental health records of witness Erica Frazier. Plummer, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 1019.

    However, time and place proximity, without more, is an insufficient basis for admission of other crimes evidence. People v. Charles, 238 Ill. App.3d 752, 762, 606 N.E.2d 603 (1992). The State argues that the gang affiliation is relevant in that the location of the crime was within the territory of defendant's gang and explained his presence in the area.