§

People v. Sevedo

74 N.E.3d 529 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)
People v. Sevedo

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Smith

    2017 Ill. App. 143728 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 23 times
    In Smith, the prosecutor referred to the murder victim as "a newlywed," "a loving husband," a "loving father to two beautiful girls," and "a spiritual man[,]" and that he was everything that the defendant was not.

    ¶ 103 To the extent defendant argues that, as a matter of statutory construction, a verdict of guilty but mentally ill should be mandatory if the three circumstances are present, such a conclusion would still not invalidate IPI Criminal 4th No. 24–25.01D. The legislature has the responsibility of drafting statutes (see People v. Sevedo , 2017 IL App (1st) 152541, ¶¶ 22–23, 412 Ill.Dec. 62, 74 N.E.3d 529 ), and any change in the wording of the relevant statutes on findings of guilty but mentally ill would have to come from the legislature, not this court. It follows that, even if we were to interpret the "may" language in the statutes as being mandatory rather than permissive, contrary to the common statutory connotation of the word (see People v. One 1998 GMC , 2011 IL 110236, ¶ 16, 355 Ill.Dec. 900, 960 N.E.2d 1071 ; People v. Reed , 177 Ill. 2d 389, 393, 226 Ill.Dec. 801, 686 N.E.2d 584 (1997) ), the statutory language would nevertheless remain the same.

  2. People v. Mitchell

    2024 Ill. App. 240730 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    If the statutory text is clear and unambiguous, it should be given effect as written, without reading into it, exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. People v. Sevedo, 2017 IL App (1st) 152541, ¶ 22. The construction of a statute is a question of law, reviewed de novo.

  3. People v. Warren

    2020 Ill. App. 190688 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    It does not establish that Jackson was a State witness testifying against the defendant in an adversarial proceeding for which charges had been entered against him. "A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated; rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person." People v. Sevedo, 2017 IL App (1st) 152541, ¶ 42 (citing People v. Creque, 72 Ill. 2d 515, 527 (1978)). At the time of Jackson's grand jury testimony, no indictment had been issued against the defendant for murder and Jackson was a grand jury witness, not a State witness testifying in an adversarial proceeding against the defendant.

  4. People v. Thomas

    2017 Ill. App. 3d 160011 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    The trial court's decision to impose a discovery sanction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Sevedo, 2017 IL App (1st) 152541, ¶ 45. ¶ 42 With regard to the first factor, the only lesser sanction available to the trial court would have been to grant defendant a continuance in this case.