People v. Hope

112 Citing cases

  1. People v. Brisbon

    129 Ill. 2d 200 (Ill. 1989)   Cited 40 times
    In People v. Brisbon (1989), 129 Ill.2d 200, we merely observed that the trial court's simultaneous consideration of the State's explanations and of the defendant's proffered prima facie case was "what might be called a consolidated proceeding" (Brisbon, 129 Ill.2d at 231).

    First, Brisbon contends that the prosecutor's remarks on the quality of mercy that the jury should accord the defendant were an expression of the prosecutor's own personal opinion and were designed to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury. Second, Brisbon contends that these remarks asked the jury to execute the defendant for the "I-57" murders, and not for the murder of "Hippie" Morgan. Brisbon, relying upon this court's decision in People v. Hope (1986), 116 Ill.2d 265, maintains that the implied references to the I-57 murders constituted reversible error because they were irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and were based upon a nonstatutory aggravating factor. We do not find Brisbon's arguments persuasive.

  2. People v. Ramirez

    2018 Ill. App. 161554 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    For the same reasons that gang membership may be necessary to understand an otherwise inexplicable act (Colon, 2018 IL App (1st) 160120, ¶ 35), the complete lack of gang membership may be necessary for a jury to fully grasp the events that led to a victim's murder. ¶ 31 Defendant argues that the State's introduction of and comments on the victim's mother's testimony are similar to the testimony and remarks that led the Illinois Supreme Court to reverse in People v. Bernette, 30 Ill. 2d 359 (1964), and People v. Hope, 116 Ill. 2d 265 (1986). ¶ 32 In Bernette, the supreme court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and found: "We do not see how the jury here could have reached any other conclusion."

  3. People v. Blue

    189 Ill. 2d 99 (Ill. 2000)   Cited 518 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that garments of police officer “tip the evidentiary scale from items that are merely useful to those that are aimed directly at the sympathies, or outrage, of the jury. These are not just bloody clothes, but the clothes of a police officer, which ... are uniquely ‘charged with emotion.’ ”

    Generally, arguments urging a fearless administration of justice or commenting unfavorably on the evils of crime do not constitute error. People v. Hope, 116 Ill.2d 265, 277-78 (1986). However, even a cursory examination of the State's argument in this case suggests more than a general exhortation to the jury to protect society.

  4. People v. Lewis

    165 Ill. 2d 305 (Ill. 1995)   Cited 361 times
    Finding the defendant's actions were essentially a single series of continuous acts where he first repeatedly stabbed the victim and then took a key out of her back pocket, used the key to unlock the apartment's door and ran out of the apartment with the key

    This court has condemned the introduction of otherwise irrelevant information about a crime victim's personal traits or familial relationships at the guilt phase of trial. (See People v. Hope (1986), 116 Ill.2d 265, 274-77 (prosecutor referenced fact that murder victim was survived by wife and three children); People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill.2d 359, 370-73 (evidence that the decedent had a wife and children); People v. Dukes (1957), 12 Ill.2d 334, 340 (son of the decedent testified concerning decedent's wife and family).) We recognize, however, that not every mention of a victim's personal traits will automatically vest in a defendant the right to a new trial.

  5. People v. Woolley

    205 Ill. 2d 296 (Ill. 2002)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Woolley, 205 Ill.2d 296, 275 Ill.Dec. 748, 793 N.E.2d 519 (2002), the Supreme Court of Illinois reversed and remanded for resentencing after the jury was informed that the defendant had previously been sentenced to death before the sentence was later overturned on appeal.

    " Defense counsel based his argument on two cases, People v. Hope, 116 Ill. 2d 265 (1986), and People v. Davis, 97 Ill. 2d 1 (1983), in which this court held that the jury should not have any knowledge of what a prior jury had done in a particular case because such knowledge could influence the jury. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial, stating that a double homicide in such a small county, such as Henry County, would be remembered and that it would be more intellectually honest to tell the jurors the case history.

  6. People v. Tillman

    2013 Ill. App. 101487 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    " ' "People v. Harris, 225 Ill. 2d 1, 31 (2007) (emphasis added) (quoting People v. Hope, 116 Ill. 2d 265, 275 (1986) (quoting Bernette, 30 Ill. 2d at 371)). Our initial declaration unmistakably holds true: defendant was required to object to the testimony at issue and include a claim of error regarding it in his posttrial motion in order to preserve this issue for our full review.

  7. People v. Simms

    121 Ill. 2d 259 (Ill. 1988)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Simms evidence of unauthorized entry was presented for the truth of that evidence, and the evidence discussed by the court made it clear that the defendant in Simms had no privilege to enter the building or the victim's apartment.

    " The defendant cites People v. Hope (1986), 116 Ill.2d 265, and People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill.2d 359, to support his argument that the trial judge committed reversible error. In Hope we emphasized that "the holding reached in each case dealing with reference to a murder victim's family will depend upon how such reference comes about."

  8. People v. Whitehead

    2022 Ill. App. 201345 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 23 Our supreme court has addressed the admission of evidence about surviving family members and cautioned against its use in criminal trials. Evidence that the deceased has a surviving spouse or family generally has no relationship to the guilt or innocence of the accused and normally serves only to prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury. People v. Hope, 116 Ill.2d 265, 275 (1986). When such evidence is not elicited incidentally but is presented in such a manner as to cause the jury to believe it is material, its admission is prejudicial and can constitute reversible error. Id.

  9. People v. Trotter

    2015 Ill. App. 131096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    Reviewing for an abuse of discretion

    Additionally, a review of Stevens' comment regarding Dods' faith in context reveals an attempt to explain why he elected to return to his apartment the morning of Dods' murder in lieu of attending church services with her. Thus, the testimony defendant complains of here does not approach the clearly inflammatory testimony elicited in the cases he relies upon to support his argument. See People v. Hope, 116 Ill. 2d 265, 276-78 (1986) (finding repeated references to victim's wife and small children improper); People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 131 (2000) (testimony concerning age of victim's child, fact that family had lived in same building together, and length of time victim's father had been married served no other purpose than to inflame jury). Instead, we believe that the details provided in both testimonies were relevant to the presentation of the State's case. ¶ 48 Finally, defendant contends that the prosecutorial misconduct continued in the State's closing argument and rebuttal.

  10. People v. Zoph

    381 Ill. App. 3d 435 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 16 times
    Finding no error

    Last, defendant argues that challenged comments (11) and (12) improperly contained highly emotional imagery about Walker and defendant's mother that had nothing to do with defendant's guilt or innocence. In support, he cites Clarke, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 106, and People v. Hope, 116 Ill. 2d 265, 275 (1986). Clarke offers no guidance other than the general abjuration against making arguments calculated solely to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury.