People v. Martinez

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Schultz

    173 Ill. App. 3d 738 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-401), one of the elements of the offense that must be shown by the State is that the accused had knowledge that the vehicle he was driving was involved in a collision. People v. Nunn (1979), 77 Ill.2d 243, 252, 396 N.E.2d 27; People v. Martinez (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 305, 311, 458 N.E.2d 104; see also Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 4-3. • 4 Ordinarily, the failure to allege the requisite mental state fatally flaws a criminal prosecution.

  2. People v. Little

    2014 Ill. App. 4th 131114 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    ¶ 96 As the State notes, "[t]he actual pendency of civil litigation is relevant as tending to show the bias or interest of a witness, and thus is a proper subject matter of cross-examination." People v. Martinez, 120 Ill. App. 3d 305, 308, 458 N.E.2d 104, 108 (1983). However, where the defendant seeks to impeach based upon potential litigation, the bias "is so indefinite and questionable as to have little probative value."

  3. People v. McCracken

    535 N.E.2d 36 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    The prosecution was not required to show that McCracken knew that he had injured Cipich; rather, it was only required to prove that he knew that his car was involved in a collision. See People v. Nunn (1979), 77 Ill.2d 243, 252, 396 N.E.2d 27, 31; People v. Martinez (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 305, 311, 458 N.E.2d 104, 110. • 5 In a bench trial, it is the trial court's province to determine the credibility and weight of the testimony, and to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts therein.