People v. Kuntz

20 Citing cases

  1. People v. Evans

    2017 Ill. App. 150091 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    ¶ 24 Generally, a trial judge may aid in bringing out the truth in a fair and impartial manner. People v. Kuntz , 239 Ill. App. 3d 587, 591, 180 Ill.Dec. 419, 607 N.E.2d 313 (1993). Illinois courts have recognized that the proper function of a judge includes a duty to ensure that justice is done in criminal trials when, for instance, " ‘ "a certain fact has not been developed or a certain line of inquiry has not been pursued," ’ " as long as the judge does not in any way become an advocate for one side or the other.

  2. Village of Kildeer v. Munyer

    384 Ill. App. 3d 251 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 10 times
    Finding the circuit "created the appearance that it was assisting in the prosecution of the defendant" by admitting evidence without motion from the State.

    "[I]t is generally never improper for a judge to aid in bringing out the truth in a fair and impartial manner, although no inflexible rule can be applied in such matters." People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill. App. 3d 587, 591 (1993). "`It is the judge's duty to see that justice is done, and where justice is liable to fail because a certain fact has not been developed or a certain line of inquiry has not been pursued it is his duty to interpose and either by suggestions to counsel or an examination conducted by himself avoid the miscarriage of justice, but in so doing he must not forget the function of the judge and assume that of the advocate.'"

  3. People v. Angel P. (In re al. P.)

    2017 Ill. App. 4th 170435 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 15 times

    ¶ 47 A trial court has discretion to allow a party—including the State—to reopen its case to provide additional proof. People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill. App. 3d 587, 591, 180 Ill.Dec. 419, 607 N.E.2d 313, 316 (1993). When deciding whether to grant a motion to reopen the proofs, a court should consider the following factors:

  4. People v. Fortney

    297 Ill. App. 3d 79 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 20 times

    If the motorist is relying upon his or her own testimony, the trial court must first find the motorist's testimony credible before the burden shifts to the State. People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill. App.3d 587, 591 (1993). Where the trial court's findings are based on the credibility of the witnesses, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the court.

  5. People v. Culpepper

    254 Ill. App. 3d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 4 times
    In People v. Culpepper, 254 Ill. App.3d 215 (1993), the trial court found that the defendant made a prima facie case after she testified that she had consumed only 1 1/2 drinks during a 2 1/2-hour period prior to an accident in which she was knocked unconscious for one hour.

    Only by allowing such continuances can the dual interests of affording drivers due process and avoiding the inconvenience and expense to the State of bringing in needed enforcement personnel in most cases be achieved. See People v. Kuntz (1993), 239 Ill. App.3d 587, 591-92, 607 N.E.2d 313, 316-17. As we have indicated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court entered here.

  6. People v. Chalmers

    2019 Ill. App. 171515 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ¶ 37 In general, a trial judge may aid in bringing out the truth of a case in a fair and impartial manner. People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill. App. 3d 587, 591 (1993). The proper function of a judge in a criminal trial includes a duty to ensure that justice is done when, for example, a certain fact has not been developed or a certain line of inquiry has not been pursued.

  7. People v. Wiggins

    2015 Ill. App. 133033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing "the narrow exception for prior statements used to rebut an inference that the witness recently fabricated the testimony"

    As such, the court is authorized to intervene when necessary to ensure that only admissible evidence goes before the jury.¶ 84 Defendants' reliance on People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill.App.3d 587, 180 Ill.Dec. 419, 607 N.E.2d 313 (1993), is unavailing. In that case, defense counsel argued in closing that the State failed to establish that a breathalyzer machine was working properly when it was administered to defendant.

  8. People v. Calaff

    2015 Ill. App. 130344 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 78 It is generally never improper for a trial judge to aid in bringing out the truth in a fair and impartial manner. People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill. App. 3d 587, 591 (1993). See Evid. Rule 614 (eff.

  9. People v. Brisco

    2012 Ill. App. 101612 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 51 times
    In Brisco, this court vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded for new posttrial proceedings where the trial court erred in denying his motion to substitute counsel for posttrial proceedings.

    Moreover, the fact that the court took the time to provide two detailed explanations to defendant as to why the sentencing parameters had changed is further evidence that the court bore defendant no ill will. ¶ 31 Nor do we find any evidence the judge assumed the role of an advocate, as this court found in People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill.App.3d 587, 180 Ill.Dec. 419, 607 N.E.2d 313 (1993), cited by defendant. There, the trial judge “prompted the State to seek a continuance and present additional evidence.”

  10. People v. Sidney

    2021 IL App (3d) 190048 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    "On all of the points mentioned by Defense counsel here today, I think the record either affirmatively rebuts it or it was confirmed even without Ms. Justice's testimony, but she pretty much sealed the deal, not that it had to be because I think the credibility of [defendant] is lacking somewhat." These comments indicated that the court would have denied the motion based on its concerns about defendant's credibility even without Justice's testimony, but Justice's testimony made the court more confident in its decision. ¶ 31 We reject defendant's reliance on People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill. App. 3d 587 (1993), which involved a summary suspension hearing. After the circuit court in Kuntz had heard the evidence and the parties had presented their arguments, the court sua sponte asked the State if it wanted time to bring in log books to show that the Breathalyzer machine the defendant had used was working properly.