People v. Petrusel

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Collins

    2019 Ill. App. 162431 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Generally, the reasonable person standard is an objective standard that does not take into account the subjective experiences of the defendant. People v. Petrusel, 238 Ill. App. 3d 683, 689 (1992). Defendant contends, however, that our courts have carved out exceptions to this general rule in certain circumstances.

  2. People v. Brown

    267 Ill. App. 3d 482 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 20 times
    Construing predecessor provision, the Illinois Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependency Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111½, par. 6351-1 et seq.)

    Moreover, the prosecutor is allowed wide latitude in closing argument and may respond in rebuttal to statements made by the defense in closing argument where the defense invites such response by his own argument. E.g., People v. Nitz (1991), 143 Ill.2d 82, 118, 572 N.E.2d 895; People v. Davis (1992), 236 Ill. App.3d 233, 243, 603 N.E.2d 635; People v. Petrusel (1992), 238 Ill. App.3d 683, 690-91, 606 N.E.2d 547. Third, defendant asserts that the trial court was required to order a substance abuse evaluation pursuant to the Act based on defense counsel's following statement at the start of defendant's sentencing hearing: