People v. Robinson

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Appelt

    2013 Ill. App. 4th 120394 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 15 times

    On appeal, we do not retry the defendant. People v. Robinson, 213 Ill.App.3d 1021, 1025, 157 Ill.Dec. 790, 572 N.E.2d 1254 (1991). Instead, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we ask whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. People v. Rush

    294 Ill. App. 3d 334 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 26 times
    In Rush itself, the jury could have heard that instruction only as part of the general instructions, as defense counsel did not object to the State's argument (Rush, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 340).

    We, as a reviewing court, are not to substitute our judgment. People v. Robinson, 213 Ill. App.3d 1021, 1025, 572 N.E.2d 1254, 1257 (1991). Although defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the State's proof, we cannot say that such efforts created a reasonable doubt of guilt.

  3. People v. Currie

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 170038 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ¶ 11 When the determination of a defendant's guilt or innocence depends upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, the reviewing court must defer to the fact finder and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. People v. Robinson, 213 Ill. App. 3d 1021, 1025 (1991). The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

  4. People v. Stagner

    2013 Ill. App. 5th 110439 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363, 380, 586 N.E.2d 1261, 1268 (1992). A reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution (People v. Cardamone, 232 Ill. 2d 504, 511, 905 N.E.2d 806, 810 (2009)) and is not to substitute its judgment for the trier of fact. Peoplev. Robinson, 213 Ill. App. 3d 1021, 1025, 572 N.E.2d 1254, 1257 (1991). ¶ 18 The witness harassment statute provides as follows:

  5. People v. McPherson

    306 Ill. App. 3d 758 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that the defendant did not challenge the jury chosen before finding that he was not prejudiced by the court's denial of his motion to move the trial

    We, as a reviewing court, are not to substitute our judgment. See People v. Robinson, 213 Ill. App.3d 1021, 1025, 572 N.E.2d 1254, 1257 (1991). In the instant case, the victim testified she was sexually assaulted in her automobile on her way home from work and that the perpetrators took her cellular phone and $150 in cash.