People v. Lee

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. O'Neal

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 200014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Though relevant to our evaluation of whether a juvenile gave a voluntary confession to police, the concerned-adult factor does not carry extra weight. See GO., 191 Ill.2d at 55; People v. Lee, 335 Ill.App.3d 659, 668, 781 N.E.2d 310, 318 (2002) ("The presence or absence of the parent is [one] factor in evaluating the voluntariness of a [juvenile's] statement or confession under the totality of the circumstances test." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).

  2. People v. Thomas

    2021 IL App (1st) 152600 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Numerous opinions of this court refer to 51st and Wentworth as the location of a police station. See, e.g., People v. Lee, 335 Ill. App. 3d 659, 662 (2002). ¶ 19 ANALYSIS

  3. People v. Ruzecki

    2020 Ill. App. 2d 190084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    Although prior consistent statements are generally inadmissible, a trial court does not need to make a quantitative or mathematical analysis of whether a witness's entire statement is inconsistent in admitting it into evidence. People v. Lee, 335 Ill. App. 3d 659, 669 (2002) (citing People v. Morales, 281 Ill. App. 3d 695, 701 (1996)). Here, the other statements merely provide context to the incident and are not unduly prejudicial.

  4. People v. Wiggins

    2015 Ill. App. 133033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    " A reviewing court will defer to the "the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether or not a witness's testimony is admissible under section 115-10.1 of the Code." People v. Harvey, 366 Ill. App. 3d 910, 922 (2006) (citing People v. Lee, 335 Ill. App. 3d 659, 669 (2002)). However, in this case, the majority has rejected the trial court's determination that Clark's entire statement was admissible under section 115-10.1 and substituted its own judgment instead.

  5. People v. Mitchell

    2012 Ill. App. 100907 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 48 times
    Noting that it is a due process violation for a conviction to be based on testimony the police know is false

    ¶ 98 Even the judicial branch, while suggesting that the juvenile officer serves the role of a concerned adult role, does not require the juvenile officer to act in any way. In People v. Lee, 335 Ill.App.3d 659, 668–69, 269 Ill.Dec. 513, 781 N.E.2d 310 (2002), this court held that defendant's claim that his confession was involuntary because the youth officer failed to protect his rights was without merit. The court reasoned that because youth officers are not required to be present during an interrogation and the record was silent on the role the youth officer played during defendant's interrogation, the supposed failure by the youth officer did not render his confession involuntary.

  6. People v. Bryant

    391 Ill. App. 3d 1072 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 31 times
    Affirming the admission of the minor victim's hearsay statements to others pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code despite the minor's unwillingness or inability to testify on direct examination about specific sexual conduct the defendant forced the minor to perform

    strict); People v. Curtis, 296 Ill. App. 3d 991, 999, 696 N.E.2d 372, 378 (4th Dist. 1998); People v. Zizzo, 301 Ill. App. 3d 481, 488-89, 703 N.E.2d 546, 551 (2d Dist. 1998); People v. Morrow, 303 Ill. App. 3d 671, 675, 708 N.E.2d 430, 435 (1st Dist. 1999); People v. Williams, 332 Ill. App. 3d 693, 696, 773 N.E.2d 1238, 1241 (3d Dist. 2002); People v. Craig, 334 Ill. App. 3d 426, 439, 778 N.E.2d 192, 203 (1st Dist. 2002); People v. Thomas, 354 Ill. App. 3d 868, 877, 821 N.E.2d 628, 636 (1st Dist. 2004); People v. Watkins, 368 Ill. App. 3d 927, 933, 859 N.E.2d 265, 270 (1st Dist. 2006); Bakr, 373 Ill. App. 3d at 987, 869 N.E.2d at 1016 (First District); People v. Fields, 285 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 1027, 675 N.E.2d 180, 185 (1st Dist. 1996); People v. Edwards, 309 Ill. App. 3d 447, 450, 722 N.E.2d 258, 260 (4th Dist. 1999); People v. Speed, 315 Ill. App. 3d 511, 516, 731 N.E.2d 1276, 1280 (4th Dist. 2000); People v. Modrowski, 296 Ill. App. 3d 735, 746, 696 N.E.2d 28, 36 (1st Dist. 1998); People v. Lee, 335 Ill. App. 3d 659, 671, 781 N.E.2d 310, 320 (1st Dist. 2002); People v. Lee, 243 Ill. App. 3d 745, 749, 612 N.E.2d 922, 924 (3d Dist. 1993); People v. Zurita, 295 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 1077, 693 N.E.2d 887, 891 (2d Dist. 1998); People v. Hernandez, 319 Ill. App. 3d 520, 532, 745 N.E.2d 673, 684 (3d Dist. 2001); People v. Morales, 281 Ill. App. 3d 695, 700, 666 N.E.2d 839, 842 (1st Dist. 1996); People v. Wheatley, 187 Ill. App. 3d 371, 381, 543 N.E.2d 259, 265 (1st Dist. 1989); People v. Martinez, 348 Ill. App. 3d 521, 534-35, 810 N.E.2d 199, 211-12 (1st Dist. 2004); People v. Watkins, 368 Ill. App. 3d 927, 930-31, 859 N.E.2d 265, 267-69 (1st Dist. 2006). c. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

  7. People v. Harvey

    366 Ill. App. 3d 910 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that improper admission of prior inconsistent handwritten statements was harmless error “because the jury was permitted to consider substantively virtually identical evidence contained in the recanting witnesses' grand jury testimonies”

    As stated above, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether or not a witness's testimony is admissible under section 115-10.1 of the Code. People v. Lee, 335 Ill.App.3d 659, 669, 269 Ill.Dec. 513, 781 N.E.2d 310 (2002). Although only the inconsistent portions of a prior statement are admissible, a trial court need not make a "quantitative or mathematical analysis" of whether a witness's entire statement is inconsistent under section 115-10.1 for the entire statement to be admissible.

  8. In re Christopher K

    348 Ill. App. 3d 130 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 14 times
    Holding the term "offense," as used in section 5-810, is not unconstitutionally vague

    Additional factors must be considered, such as the time of day and the presence of a parent or other adult concerned about the juvenile's welfare. People v. Lee, 335 Ill. App. 3d 659, 666 (2002), citing People v. Kolakowski, 319 Ill. App. 3d 200, 213 (2001), citing In re J.J.C., 294 Ill. App. 3d 227, 234 (1998). The trial court found significant the fact that both a parent and a youth officer were present.