People v. Vella

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Irby

    237 Ill. App. 3d 38 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that no negative inference may be raised by the State's failure to call a witness where the same witness is known and available to defendant, but is not called by defendant

    This admission constitutes direct evidence. People v. Panus (1979), 76 Ill.2d 263; People v. Vella (1985), 133 Ill. App.3d 104. Defendant asserts that Lageotakes' testimony is unworthy of rational belief and is not corroborated by the other evidence.

  2. People v. Fyke

    190 Ill. App. 3d 713 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    In any event, we do not find the admission of this evidence to be erroneous. Evidence is relevant where it tends to prove a disputed fact or render a matter in question more or less probable. ( People v. Vella (1985), 133 Ill. App.3d 104, 478 N.E.2d 593.) Relevant evidence is admissible where it fairly tends to prove the offense charged. ( People v. Daniels (1987), 164 Ill. App.3d 1055, 518 N.E.2d 669.)

  3. People v. Daniels

    164 Ill. App. 3d 1055 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 30 times
    Regarding introduction of evidence in criminal case

    ( People v. Clark (1987), 160 Ill. App.3d 877, 888-89; People v. Veal (1986), 149 Ill. App.3d 619.) Evidence is relevant when it tends to prove a disputed fact or to render the matter in issue more or less probable in light of logic, experience and accepted assumptions of human behavior. People v. Vella (1985), 133 Ill. App.3d 104. • 8, 9 Although the court and the People are under a duty to avoid the introduction of evidence the prejudicial effect which outweighs its relevance ( People v. Jones (1982), 94 Ill.2d 275), relevant, admissible evidence need not be excluded simply because it tends to prejudice the accused; the trial court must weigh the relevance of the evidence against its prejudicial effect on the defendant.