Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Petitt

245 Ill. App. 3d 132 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Petitt

20 Citing cases

  1. People v. Learn

    396 Ill. App. 3d 891 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 32 times
    In Learn, a divided court opined that a witness did not testify for purposes of section 115-10 of the Code where she did not provide accusatory testimony; in the court's view, "[i]mmaterial or general background 'testimony' is not sufficient."

    ' [Citation]." People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 142 (1993). Stokes no more heard K.O.'s remarks personally than K.O. heard Stokes' questions personally.

  2. People v. Learn

    371 Ill. App. 3d 701 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    In Learn, a panel of this court held that a child witness was unavailable for purposes of section 115-10 of the Code where after admitting that she knew the defendant as her aunt's husband and stating that she did not like the defendant but did not know why, the witness began to cry and did not answer any more questions. Learn, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 705-07.

    [Citation]." People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 142 (1993). Stokes no more heard K.O.'s remarks personally than K.O. heard Stokes' questions personally.

  3. People v. Reber

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 150439 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 19 times
    In Reber, 2019 IL App (5th) 150439, the court applied a harmless error analysis where the defendant argued that the trial court's failure to assess the prejudicial value of certain photographs admitted pursuant to section 115-7.3 constituted plain error or, alternatively, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue in a posttrial motion.

    The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review unpreserved error in two situations: "if either [ (1) ] the evidence was closely balanced or [ (2) ] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial." People v. Hindson , 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 473-74, 234 Ill.Dec. 856, 703 N.E.2d 956, 962-63 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt , 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139, 184 Ill.Dec. 766, 613 N.E.2d 1358, 1365 (1993) ); People v. Thompson , 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403, 413 (2010) (citing People v. Piatkowski , 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565, 312 Ill.Dec. 338, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007) ). The defendant bears the burden of persuasion in plain error review.

  4. People v. Atherton

    406 Ill. App. 3d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 49 times
    Finding trial court's error in admitting other-crimes evidence as harmless, where the outcome of the trial would not have been different in the absence of the other-crimes evidence

    The adequacy of an expert witness's qualifications is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court that will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 145 (1993). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Young to testify as an expert witness regarding the syndrome.

  5. People v. Peterson

    2020 Ill. App. 5th 160541 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review an unpreserved error "if either [(1)] the evidence was closely balanced or [(2)] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial." People v. Hindson, 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 473-74 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139 (1993)); People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010) (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)). In plain error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion.

  6. People v. Olson

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 150176 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    The plain error rule may be used if the evidence was closely balanced or the error was so great that the defendant did not receive a fair trial. People v. Hindson, 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 474-74, 703 N.E.2d 956, 962-63 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139, 613 N.E.2d 1358, 1365 (1993)); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007)). In plain error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion.

  7. People v. Foxworth

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 140456 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    The plain error doctrine can be used in criminal cases to review an unpreserved error "if either [1] the evidence was closely balanced or [2] the error was of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial." People v. Hindson, 301 Ill. App. 3d 466, 473-74, 703 N.E.2d 956, 962-63 (1998) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 139, 613 N.E.2d 1358, 1365 (1993)); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (quoting People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410 (2007)). In plain error review, the defendant bears the burden of

  8. People v. Reed

    2016 Ill. App. 2d 150253 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    People v. Johnson, 2014 IL App (2d) 121004, ¶ 51. For this reason as well, the admission of Alshanski's testimony was harmless error.¶ 51 In so ruling, we note that the defendant relies on People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132 (1993), in arguing that Alshanski's testimony was improperly admitted. In Petitt, as a prelude to the sex offense at issue there, the defendant had the victim scratch his back.

  9. People v. Z.J.C. (In re Z.J.C.)

    2015 Ill. App. 3d 140813 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    See People v. Soler, 228 Ill. App. 3d 183, 200 (1992) ("Where minor inconsistencies or discrepancies exist in a complainant's testimony but do not detract from the reasonableness of her story as a whole,the complainant's testimony may be found to be adequate to support a conviction for sexual abuse."); see also People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 138-39 (1993) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of aggravated criminal sexual abuse where there were discrepancies in the minor victim's trial testimony and prior statements regarding when and where the abuse occurred and the victim had a motive to fabricate).¶ 34 Thus, the evidence was sufficient to convict Z.J.C. of aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and we will not reverse the trial court's finding of delinquency.

  10. People v. Muth

    2014 Ill. App. 2d 120914 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The adequacy of an expert witness's qualifications is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court that will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Atherton, 406 Ill. App. 3d 598, 614 (2010) (citing People v. Petitt, 245 Ill. App. 3d 132, 145 (1993)).¶ 62 In the present case, Riehm has knowledge and experience of child sexual abuse beyond that of the average citizen; for example, 26 years of experience working with traumatized children who have been the alleged victims of sexual abuse.