People v. Cruz

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cruz

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 190796 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. People v. Cruz, 372 Ill.App.3d 556, 562 (2007). We initially noted that because defendant did not raise the issue of the interpreter's qualifications in the trial court, his claim was subject to review only if it rose to the level of plain error.

  2. People v. Al-Shwaili

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 170692 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Thus, the question is whether the alleged error "affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding and compromised the integrity of the judicial process." People v. Cruz, 372 Ill. App. 3d 556, 559 (2007). "We begin a plain-error analysis by determining if there was reversible error in the first instance, as '[a]bsent reversible error, there can be no plain error.' "

  3. People v. Tamayo

    2016 Ill. App. 3d 140368 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Defendant's timing in raising this issue is a factor we give significant weight. See People v. Cruz, 372 Ill. App. 3d 556, 560-61 (2007) (quoting United States v. Paz, 981 F.2d 199, 201 n.2 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Valladares v. United States, 871 F.2d 1564, 1566 (11th Cir. 1989))) (" ' "To allow a defendant to remain silent throughout the trial and then, upon being found guilty, to assert a claim of inadequate translation would be an open invitation to abuse." ' "). ΒΆ 44 For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Whiteside County.