People v. Henderson

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Henry

    343 Ill. App. 3d 133 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    We therefore conclude that the proceedings in this case were not contrary to the supreme court's holding in Pomykala. See also People v. Henderson, 329 Ill.App.3d 810, 823, 263 Ill.Dec. 462, 768 N.E.2d 222 (2002) (holding that the trial court avoided any constitutional error by eliminating jury instruction compelling the jury to presume the defendant was acting recklessly).         Defendant argues that the State's comments during closing argument improperly informed the jury that it could presume, "due to the .08 alcohol content level, that [defendant] acted recklessly."

  2. People v. Langford

    2015 Ill. App. 131869 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    "If photographs are relevant to prove any fact at issue, they are admissible and can be shown to the jury unless their nature is so prejudicial and so likely to inflame the jurors' passions that their probative value is outweighed." People v. Terrell, 185 Ill. 2d 467, 495 (1998); see also People v. Henderson, 329 Ill. App. 3d 810, 826 (2002) (Photographs are admissible at trial if they are relevant and their probative value is not outweighed by their prejudicial effect). "The responsibility of weighing the probative value and potentially prejudicial effect of photographic evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court."

  3. People v. Lindsey

    2013 Ill. App. 3d 100625 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 13 times
    Noting perpetrator points gun, yelling "give me the shit," meaning "money"

    ΒΆ 49 Photographs are properly admitted where they are used to establish any relevant fact, even if the defendant fails to contest an issue or is willing to stipulate to a fact. Bounds, 171 Ill.2d at 47, 215 Ill.Dec. 28, 662 N.E.2d 1168;People v. Henderson, 329 Ill.App.3d 810, 827, 263 Ill.Dec. 462, 768 N.E.2d 222 (2002). Among the valid reasons for admitting photographs of a decedent is to prove the nature and extent of injuries, the position, condition, and location of the body, the manner and cause of death, and to aid in understanding the testimony of a pathologist or other witness.

  4. Henderson v. Illinois

    540 U.S. 890 (2003)

    App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 329 Ill. App. 3d 810, 768 N. E. 2d 222.

  5. U.S. ex Rel. Ruiz v. Yurkovich

    No. 08 C 4582 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2010)

    Whether the language of the statute is viewed as a presumption or a definition, the language does not relieve the State of its burden of proof on the reckless homicide charge. See Henderson, 329 Ill. App.3d at 821, 263 Ill. Dec. 462, 768 N.E.2d 222. Here, the State introduced evidence that, at the time of the collision, defendant was driving his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed and entered the intersection of Gary Avenue and Lake Street despite the red traffic signal.

  6. Misuraca v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2014 Ill. App. 122148 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    Moreover, even if it did, we note that the inference is merely permissive and the Commission was not required to draw it. See People v. Henderson, 329 Ill. App. 3d 810, 820 (2002). ΒΆ 14 Finally, we remind claimant that he had the burden of proof in the proceedings before the Commission. Quality Wood Products Corp., 97 Ill. 2d at 423.

  7. Bd. of Educ. of Durand Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 322 v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.

    2013 Ill. App. 2d 121013 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    Thus, to the extent the presumption exists, it is discretionary. See People v. Henderson, 329 Ill. App. 3d 810, 820 (2002) (holding that language in jury instruction stating that the jury "may infer" creates a permissive presumption). We note additionally that the Board cites no evidence that, in fact, the trial court failed to draw a "negative inference" based on the District's failure to produce the evidence at issue.

  8. People v. Lush

    372 Ill. App. 3d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Vacating one of two reckless homicide counts involving the same victim

    The State concedes that this court should vacate defendant's conviction under count I, and we accept the State's concession. See People v. Henderson, 329 Ill. App. 3d 810, 828, 768 N.E.2d 222, 237 (2002) (in which the appellate court vacated one of the defendant's reckless-homicide convictions because only one decedent was involved). Accordingly, we vacate defendant's reckless-homicide conviction under count I.

  9. People v. Woodrum

    354 Ill. App. 3d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    Presumptions are legal devices by which a trier of fact may "assume the existence of a presumed or ultimate fact based on certain predicate or basic facts." People v. Greco, 204 Ill. 2d 400, 407 (2003); People v. Henderson, 329 Ill. App. 3d 810 (2002). "Mandatory presumptions in criminal cases are unconstitutional because they relieve the State of the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and violate the due process clause by shifting the burden of persuasion to the criminal defendant."