People v. Mitchell

33 Citing cases

  1. People v. McQueen

    115 Ill. App. 3d 833 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 21 times
    In People v. McQueen (1983), 115 Ill. App.3d 833, 839, 450 N.E.2d 921, 926, the court observed that "[w]here direct evidence shows that the weapon found in a defendant's possession was not used in the commission of the offense, normally, it may not be admitted into evidence.

    A defendant's false exculpatory statement may be admissible to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt. (See People v. Watson (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 992, 431 N.E.2d 1350; People v. Puente (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 936, 424 N.E.2d 775; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153; People v. Wilson (1972), 8 Ill. App.3d 1075, 291 N.E.2d 270.) The present issue requires a determination of whether defendant's false statement was "exculpatory" and thus admissible to show his consciousness of guilt.

  2. People v. Watson

    103 Ill. App. 3d 992 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 32 times
    In Watson, after a particular juror had been selected and sworn, the prosecutor began to have doubts about the accuracy of some of his answers during voir dire.

    Thus, other evidence presented at trial showed the falsity of the defendant's out-of-court statements. A defendant's false exculpatory statement has independent probative value as evidence of consciousness of guilt and is admissible. ( People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153.) Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err when it admitted these false exculpatory statements into evidence.

  3. People v. Surges

    428 N.E.2d 1012 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the trial court properly refused to answer questions from the jury asking that the trial court explain why certain individuals did not testify at trial

    ( People v. King (1977), 66 Ill.2d 551, 363 N.E.2d 838; People v. Donald (1977), 56 Ill. App.3d 538, 371 N.E.2d 1101.) Assuming that the issue has not been waived, the State contends that the prosecution drew proper inferences from the facts and circumstances established by the evidence. (See People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153.) The State contends that it is proper for the prosecution to emphasize the evils of crime ( People v. Griggs (1977), 51 Ill. App.3d 224, 366 N.E.2d 581), that it is permissible to comment on the defendant's trial tactics without accusing defense of any misconduct ( People v. Johnson (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 431, 392 N.E.2d 587), and that it is permissible to comment on defendant's use of a "smokescreen" defense when such an interpretation of the defense would be reasonable ( People v. Madden (1978), 57 Ill. App.3d 107, 372 N.E.2d 851; People v. Griggs). The State argues that even if the remarks were improper, they did not constitute a material factor in defendant's conviction and did not substantially prejudice defendant.

  4. People v. Chmilenko

    2016 Ill. App. 143553 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    We find no such abuse in the instant case. ¶ 46 Generally, evidence is admissible if it is relevant and material to an issue. People v. Mitchell, 35 Ill. App. 3d 151, 163 (1971). Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

  5. People v. Lee

    229 Ill. App. 3d 254 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 21 times
    In People v. Lee (1992), 229 Ill. App.3d 254, reversal was granted based on a combination of errors, which included ineffective assistance for the defendant's attorney's failure to proffer an instruction on intoxication, the prosecutor's misstatement of the law, and the prosecutor's erroneous vouching for a witness.

    People v. Ray (1984), 126 Ill. App.3d 656, 664. Considering the context of the language used, its relation to the evidence, and the effect of the argument on the rights of defendant to a fair and impartial trial ( People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 164), we conclude that the jury could have reached a different verdict had the improper comments not been made. ( People v. Warmack (1980), 83 Ill.2d 112, 128-29.) Because Shenberger was the only occurrence witness, his testimony and credibility were crucial to the State's case.

  6. People v. Manley

    222 Ill. App. 3d 896 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 35 times
    In Manley, the court rejected the argument that the State's reference to the defendant as a "depraved human being" warranted reversal.

    In making this determination, reference must be made to the content of the language used, its relation to the evidence, and the effect of the argument on the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial trial. ( Witted, 79 Ill. App.3d at 165, 398 N.E.2d at 76; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 164, 341 N.E.2d 153, 163.) As previously noted, every reasonable presumption must be indulged in that the trial judge has performed his duty and properly exercised the discretion vested in him.

  7. People v. Sheppard

    549 N.E.2d 971 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    Most notably, defendant claimed he was dating a woman in the area who often sent him to Mick's, but defendant never produced such a woman at trial to verify his story. While in general it is improper to accuse a defendant of lying, such an inference may be stated when the facts indicate he is being untruthful. ( People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 164, 341 N.E.2d 153, 163.) The comments made here concerning defendant's lack of credibility were within the bounds of propriety under such circumstances and did not constitute error in the context in which given. (See Albanese, 104 Ill.2d at 522, 473 N.E.2d at 1253; People v. Slaughter (1980), 84 Ill. App.3d 1103, 1113-14, 405 N.E.2d 1295, 1304.

  8. People v. Bivens

    163 Ill. App. 3d 472 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 16 times
    In People v. Bivens, 163 Ill.App.3d 472, 495–96, 114 Ill.Dec. 583, 516 N.E.2d 738 (1987), we vacated the defendant's extended term sentence because the trial court did not find that any of the section 5–5–3.2(b) extended term factors in aggravation were present.

    In determining whether a prosecutor's comments or arguments constitute prejudicial error reference must sometimes be made to the content of the language used, its relation to the evidence and the effect of such argument on the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial trial. People v. Witted (1979), 79 Ill. App.3d 156, 165, 398 N.E.2d 68; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153. • 8 In the first instance, the prosecutor during opening statements commented that the victim was a "good young man."

  9. People v. Neumann

    148 Ill. App. 3d 362 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 39 times
    In State v. Neumann, 148 Ill. App.3d 362, 101 Ill.Dec. 899, 499 N.E.2d 487 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1051, 107 S.Ct. 2184, 95 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987), the court held that a criminal record does not disqualify a person from testifying; it merely goes to his credibility.

    In applying this test, the entire argument must be considered and the complained-of comments placed in context. People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153. We have determined that in the instant case many of the complained-of remarks were in fact fair comment on matters properly in evidence and reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom.

  10. People v. Johnson

    461 N.E.2d 585 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 16 times

    A prosecutor's argument is proper comment if it is invited by defense counsel's remarks. People v. Medley (1983), 111 Ill. App.3d 444, 444 N.E.2d 269; People v. Olejniczak (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 112, 390 N.E.2d 1339; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153. • 4 Defendant also contends that the reading by prosecutor during closing argument of notations written by the victim in one of her books was improper.