People v. Taylor

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Russell

    165 Ill. App. 3d 569 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    See People v. Cole (1982), 91 Ill.2d 172, 175, 435 N.E.2d 490, 491 ("[I]n the absence of an abuse of discretion by the trial court when it discharges a jury because of its failure to reach a verdict, the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar a new trial"). In People v. Taylor (1985), 137 Ill. App.3d 148, 484 N.E.2d 384, defendant was retried for theft of firearms not from the person after his first trial ended in a hung jury. On appeal, defendant urged this court to review the evidence presented at his first trial.

  2. People v. Enoch

    189 Ill. App. 3d 535 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that prosecutor's comments during closing argument referring to "`each and every one of us, and all our loved ones,'" did not constitute an improper alignment of the prosecution with the jury or the prosecutor acting as a "`thirteenth juror'"

    A witness, however, is not equally available if he is likely to be biased against the State, for example, if that witness is related to the defendant. (See People v. Morando (1988), 169 Ill. App.3d 716, 735, 523 N.E.2d 1061, 1075; People v. Wilson (1986), 149 Ill. App.3d 293, 300, 500 N.E.2d 128, 133; People v. Taylor (1985), 137 Ill. App.3d 148, 154, 484 N.E.2d 383, 387.) Hence, we conclude that any comment by the prosecutor on defendants' failure to call their mother and brother to testify here was proper inasmuch as defendants' mother and brother were not equally accessible to the State, because they were likely biased against the State and also may have contradicted the victim's testimony.

  3. People v. Alexander

    540 N.E.2d 949 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 5 times
    In People v. Alexander (1989), 184 Ill. App.3d 855, 540 N.E.2d 949, the court ruled the defendant waived review of the propriety of using a conviction based upon a nolo contendere plea for impeachment purposes.

    ) Here, we believe that the defendant's wife was not equally accessible to the State inasmuch as she was likely biased in favor of the defendant. See People v. Morando (1988), 169 Ill. App.3d 716, 523 N.E.2d 1061, 1075 (brother of defendant likely to be biased in favor of defendant and thus not equally accessible to the State); Wilson, 149 Ill. App.3d at 300, 500 N.E.2d at 133 (defendant's fiancee not equally available to State because she is likely biased toward defendant); People v. Taylor (1985), 137 Ill. App.3d 148, 154, 484 N.E.2d 383, 387 (defendant's stepchildren not equally available to State). • 8 We also find that the comment concerning Grace was a proper comment.

  4. People v. Diaz

    522 N.E.2d 1386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 9 times
    In Diaz, defendant alleged a failure of the trial court to admonish the jurors not to discuss the case with anyone and to avoid exposure to media reports.

    In this regard, the prosecutor urged the jurors to do their duty and find defendant guilty. The remarks were proper as an exhortation to the jury to fearlessly administer the law. See People v. Boyle (1987), 161 Ill. App.3d 1054, 1096, 514 N.E.2d 1169; People v. Taylor (1985), 137 Ill. App.3d 148, 154, 484 N.E.2d 383. We have examined both United States v. Young (1985), 470 U.S. 1, 84 L.Ed.2d 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, and United States v. Mandelbaum (1st Cir. 1986), 803 F.2d 42, and do not find that the remarks made in those cases were similar to the comments made here, nor were they made in the same context as in the case at bar.

  5. People v. Boyle

    514 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 10 times

    As the State observes, the remark was proper as an exhortation to the jury fearlessly to administer the law. People v. Taylor (1985), 137 Ill. App.3d 148, 484 N.E.2d 383. • 24 The defendant's final assignment of error concerns the sentence imposed of 50 years.

  6. People v. Talley

    152 Ill. App. 3d 971 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 32 times
    Finding no error in trial court's denial of defendant's mistrial motion after prosecutor merely explained that he had been "not too happy" with challenged venire member's "demeanor and how he answered the questions"

    Cf. People v. Taylor (1985), 137 Ill. App.3d 148, 154, 484 N.E.2d 383, 387 (proper for State to comment on defendant's failure to call his stepchildren as witnesses — they could not be considered equally available to the prosecution and they could either support defendant's alibi or explain why they could not establish defendant's presence at a certain location on dates in question). • 14 When a defendant elects to take the stand in his own behalf, and gives such limited testimony on direct examination — as in this case — that the assertion of an alibi, as well as the names of potential alibi witnesses, are raised first on cross-examination, he is not automatically insulated from the inferences which naturally flow from the failure of the defendant to present any of the five witnesses he said he was with at the time of the offense.