People v. Hurley

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Henderson

    39 Ill. App. 3d 502 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 27 times
    Finding flight implies consciousness of guilt

    However, flight is not a material element of proof, since it is at most an incriminating circumstance, and therefore it need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Hurley (2d Dist. 1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 167, 241 N.E.2d 318. The State's evidence showed that defendant fled the scene of the shooting and was arrested in Chicago some three months later.

  2. People v. Joyce

    234 Ill. App. 3d 394 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 8 times

    In fact, this court long ago stated that the word "flight" was "commonly understood as connoting evasive action rather than a mere leaving of the scene." ( People v. Hurley (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 167, 170.) The accused must be attempting to avoid arrest or detection, actions which imply a consciousness of guilt.

  3. People v. Montgomery

    305 N.E.2d 627 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 11 times

    • 6 In addition, in the case before us, evidence of the flight was, "* * * at most an incriminating circumstance and not a material element of proof." ( People v. Hurley, 100 Ill. App.2d 167, 170, 241 N.E.2d 318 citing People v. Alexander, 77 Ill. App.2d 151, 157, 222 N.E.2d 172.) The remaining direct evidence of guilt was strong and convincing beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. People v. Zertuche

    5 Ill. App. 3d 303 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)   Cited 20 times
    In People v. Zertuche, 5 Ill. App.3d 303, 282 N.E.2d 201, the court held that the giving of a flight instruction was error, and the court reversed the conviction.

    See, People v. Brown (1972), 3 Ill. App.3d 1022, 279 N.E.2d 765, 768; People v. Johnson (1966), 75 Ill. App.2d 231, 236-237. • 9 The prosecution emphasizes the fact that there was testimony that the defendant ran from the scene and cites, People v. Agnello (1961), 22 Ill.2d 352, 363; People v. Dukes (1957), 12 Ill.2d 334, 343; People v. Hurley (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 167, 169-171. All of these cases are distinguishable on the basis that the defendants therein were running from pursuing police, indicating an attempt to evade arrest.