People v. Griffin

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. O'Malley

    356 Ill. App. 3d 1038 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that a statute providing that a police officer "driving a vehicle" and signaling a motorist to stop "shall display illuminated oscillating, rotating or flashing red or blue lights" requires that "the signal to stop in situation must , at minimum, be in the form of ‘illuminated oscillating, rotating or flashing red or blue lights’ "

    "While great deference is given to a Trial Judge's findings at a bench trial, there are special situations and circumstances that can warrant a reversal on reasonable doubt grounds. People v. Warren, 40 Ill. App. 3d 1008, 353 N.E.[2d] 625 (First Dist., 1976), People v. McCarthy, 102 Ill. App. 3d 519, 430 N.E. 2d 135 (First Dist., 1981), People v. Griffin, 29 Ill. App. 3d 581, 331 N.E.[2d] 131 (First Dist., 1975) [.] The case at bar is one of those rare cases where the Bench Trial finding cannot stand the scrutiny of Appellate Review.

  2. People v. Hajostek

    363 N.E.2d 1208 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    In People v. Carpi (3d Dist. 1976), 44 Ill. App.3d 364, 358 N.E.2d 355, this court stated, with regard to a trial court's determination in a bench trial (at 44 Ill. App.3d 364, 369): "The trial judge in this case had the opportunity to view the witnesses and hear their testimony and, such determination would not be lightly set aside, but it is always the duty of this Court to examine the evidence in a criminal case, and if it is so unsatisfactory as to raise a serious doubt of defendant's guilt, the conviction will be reversed. ( People v. Griffin (1st Dist. 1975), 29 Ill. App.3d 581, 331 N.E.2d 121.) The trial court as the trier of fact determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony and a finding of guilty by the trial court will be disturbed only where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable and unsatisfactory as to leave a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.

  3. People v. Carpi

    358 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    • 1 The first contention raised by defendant on this appeal is that, in light of defendant's asserted self-defense argument, the State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant does not appear to contest the commission of the acts which caused the death of Wysocki, but seeks to justify those acts as self-defense. The trial judge in this case had the opportunity to view the witnesses and hear their testimony and, such determination would not be lightly set aside, but it is always the duty of this Court to examine the evidence in a criminal case, and if it is so unsatisfactory as to raise a serious doubt of defendant's guilt, the conviction will be reversed. ( People v. Griffin (1st Dist. 1975), 29 Ill. App.3d 581, 331 N.E.2d 121.) The trial court as the trier of fact determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony and a finding of guilty by the trial court will be disturbed only where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable and unsatisfactory as to leave a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.

  4. People v. Bunch

    343 N.E.2d 575 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 8 times

    We are of the opinion that the evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant entered the car without the consent of the owner or that he knew it was stolen at that time. • 4 Although the determination of the trial judge who had the opportunity to view the witnesses and hear their testimony will not be lightly set aside ( People v. McGhee, 20 Ill. App.3d 915, 314 N.E.2d 313), it is always the duty of this court to examine the evidence in a criminal case and, if it is so unsatisfactory as to raise a serious doubt of defendant's guilt, the conviction should be reversed. ( People v. Griffin, 29 Ill. App.3d 581, 331 N.E.2d 121.) Here, we believe that the evidence was so unsatisfactory as to leave a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, and the judgment will be reversed.