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. Smith

105 Ill. App. 3d 639 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Smith

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Brady

    2017 Ill. App. 3d 150184 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, in Gray, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 617, this court noted that "[a] sawed-off shotgun has been considered among the most dangerous and threatening weapons, the use ofwhich threatens serious harm greater than is inherent in all armed robberies (People v. Smith, 105 Ill. App. 3d 639 (1982))."

  2. People v. Burge

    254 Ill. App. 3d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 34 times
    Stating "every reference by the sentencing court to a factor implicit in the offense does not constitute reversible error"

    The Gray court reasoned that a sawed-off shotgun has been considered to be one of the most dangerous and threatening weapons, and the use of that weapon threatens serious harm greater than is inherent in all armed robberies. Gray, 212 Ill. App.3d at 617; see also People v. Smith (1982), 105 Ill. App.3d 639. In People v. Davis (1993), 252 Ill. App.3d 812, 814, this court stated that "the threat of serious harm is not implicit in every armed robbery, as is the receipt of proceeds in every theft."

  3. People v. Gray

    212 Ill. App. 3d 613 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a defendant's use of a sawed-off shotgun, one of the most dangerous of weapons, in committing an armed robbery was a proper factor to be considered in aggravation

    A sawed-off shotgun has been considered among the most dangerous and threatening weapons, the use of which threatens serious harm greater than is inherent in all armed robberies. ( People v. Smith (1982), 105 Ill. App.3d 639, 433 N.E.2d 1169.) Since we agree with the case law which holds that a court may consider the degree of threatened harm in an armed robbery, we find no error. The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.