People v. Davis

10 Citing cases

  1. United States ex Rel. Burton v. Greer

    643 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1981)   Cited 8 times
    Holding the defendant was not denied the right of effective appeal by the absence of transcript testimony that was not germane to an appealed issue

    Moreover, the evidence of voluntariness, including Burton's own testimony, was overwhelming. Since Burton did not attempt to impeach Workman with the pretrial testimony during trial, he would have been barred by Illinois' waiver rule from challenging Workman's credibility for the first time on appeal. People v. Stoddard, 51 Ill.2d 190, 281 N.E.2d 678 (1972); People v. Davis, 18 Ill.App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682 (1974); People v. Johnson, 123 Ill.App.2d 69, 259 N.E.2d 621 (1970). IV

  2. People v. Calderon

    101 Ill. App. 3d 469 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 23 times
    In Calderon, officers went to a defendant's residence to arrest him, entered with drawn revolvers pointed at him, required him to lie on the floor, and, before giving Miranda warnings, asked him where his car was. That defendant gave an untrue answer.

    The State argues that since this issue was not raised at the trial court, it must be waived for purposes of review. People v. Stanley (1978), 62 Ill. App.3d 638, 378 N.E.2d 1351; People v. Davis (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682. Defendant argues that the waiver rule should be relaxed in this case for three reasons.

  3. People v. Zenner

    396 N.E.2d 1107 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    Where there is testimonial evidence of contradictions between a defendant's separate stories, the State is entitled in rebuttal to reply to defense counsel's arguments by showing that contradictory statements were in fact made. See People v. Davis (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682; and People v. Anderson (1971), 48 Ill.2d 488, 272 N.E.2d 18. • 4 Nor do we find reversal required by the prosecutor's reference during initial closing argument to the omissions in defendant's statement to Gutrich.

  4. People v. Taylor

    384 N.E.2d 558 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 6 times
    In People v. Taylor (1978), 66 Ill. App.3d 907, 384 N.E.2d 558, the defendant's identification as a burglary suspect came through the prior inconsistent statement of one co-defendant that corroborated only one of the versions of the story given by a second co-defendant.

    We have also noted that many cases have held that when grounds for a new trial are stated in writing, a defendant on review is limited to errors set out in the post-trial motion, and the other issues are regarded as being waived. ( People v. Davis (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682.) It has also been noted in People v. Dees (1st Dist. 1977), 46 Ill. App.3d 1010, 1018, 361 N.E.2d 1126, 1131, that the post-trial waiver rule "has been relaxed where an issue not specified in the motion for a new trial had in fact been brought to the attention of and ruled upon by the trial court and where the accused would have been prejudiced should his contention be established as well-founded." In the instant case, the issue raised on appeal was brought to the trial court's attention and was ruled on during the trial.

  5. People v. Fochs

    353 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 11 times

    " This court notes that "one cannot provoke a reply to his own improper argument and then claim error." ( People v. Davis, 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 801, 310 N.E.2d 682, 689.) The State may also answer matters raised by the defense.

  6. People v. Atkins

    40 Ill. App. 3d 182 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 2 times

    The State argues that defense counsel "opened the door" to this line of argument and that the response was therefore proper. (See People v. Anderson, 48 Ill.2d 488, 272 N.E.2d 18 (1971); People v. Davis, 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682 (1st Dist. 1974).) We disagree. While perhaps provoked, the State's purported excuse was based on facts not in evidence and was therefore improper.

  7. People v. Hill

    339 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 10 times

    Neither the defendant nor the State has cited any Illinois cases which have decided the issue involved herein. Our own research indicates that at least two Illinois cases, People v. Davis, 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682, and People v. Jackson, 132 Ill. App.2d 464, 270 N.E.2d 498 (to be discussed hereinafter), have given some consideration to this issue. The issue has also been discussed in a number of cases from other jurisdictions.

  8. People v. Fulton

    339 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    Furthermore, since the defendant's privately retained counsel failed to interpose an objection to this testimony during the trial and further failed to suggest such error in his written motion for a new trial we will not entertain defendant's objection on appeal, deeming such objection to have been waived. ( People v. Hairston, 46 Ill.2d 348, 246 N.E.2d 869, cert. denied, 402 U.S. 972, 29 L.Ed.2d 136, 91 S.Ct. 1658; People v. Davis, 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682.) We take into consideration too, the fact that our reading of the record leads us to the conclusion that there was other sufficient evidence of defendant's participation in the armed robbery which resulted in the murder, from which reasonable men could conclude, that beyond a reasonable doubt defendant was guilty of the charge.

  9. People v. McClellan

    331 N.E.2d 292 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    We will also point out here, as we will concerning additional contentions, that defendant made no objection to this portion of the preliminary statement by the court; did not ever move the court to discharge the jury for this reason and did not include any reference to this alleged error in his written motion for a new trial. It is therefore clear that, even if any error did exist in this regard, it has been waived by failure to object and failure to include the matter in the motion for new trial. See People v. Studdard, 51 Ill.2d 190, 198, 281 N.E.2d 678, regarding failure to object; People v. Hairston, 46 Ill.2d 348, 366, 367, 263 N.E.2d 840, on failure to include the matter in the written motion for new trial; also, People v. Davis, 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 797, 310 N.E.2d 682, and People v. Smith, 17 Ill. App.3d 494, 496, 497, 308 N.E.2d 257, covering both of these points. • 2 The second point raised by defendant is actually an extension of his first claim regarding the initial statements of the trial court.

  10. People v. Oestringer

    24 Ill. App. 3d 185 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)   Cited 10 times

    The sole purpose of remandment is to permit the trial judge to determine whether periodic imprisonment, which was a viable alternative at the time the defendant was sentenced, is appropriate. See generally People v. Killebrew, 55 Ill.2d 337, 303 N.E.2d 377, 381; People v. Davis, 18 Ill. App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682, 690. In accordance with the foregoing conclusions we affirm the judgment entered by the circuit court of St. Clair County against the defendant and remand this case for resentencing consistent with opinions expressed herein.