People v. Wells

48 Citing cases

  1. People v. Pitts

    2016 Ill. App. 132205 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Pitts, "the evidence *** that defendant, a felon, lived in the home where guns were found" was "enough to tend to show that he possessed the firearms" and "to corroborate defendant's admission that he owned the firearms."

    The State, while acknowledging that it failed to produce the original second page of the complaint, claims that the trial court properly considered the second page of a duplicate version of the complaint as if it were part of the signed complaint.¶ 45 Defendant relies on the Court Records Restoration Act (at times, the Act) (705 ILCS 85/1 et seq. (West 2010)), and our supreme court's decision in People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303 (1998), for his position that the State was required to satisfy the dictates of the Act if it wanted to restore the missing page two of the complaint for search warrant. That Act governs the loss or destruction “of any judgment or order, or other proceeding, of any judicial court of this State, or any part of the record of any judicial proceeding.”

  2. People v. Joyner

    2022 Ill. App. 2d 210045 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    In Joyner, the circuit court granted the State's Rule 472 motion to reduce defendant's presentence credit after discovering he was only eligible for 1502 days rather than the 3002 days he initially received.

    The forfeiture doctrine serves the salutary purpose of prompting the parties to timely articulate arguments. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490 (1998). An argument that could have been timely made, but was not, is forfeited.

  3. People v. Cruz

    2013 Ill. App. 111796 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    ¶ 39 Defendant argues that because his explanation for the killing was not improbable and was not impeached, the jury could not disregard his testimony and therefore the evidence is not sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant cites People v. Wells, 182 Ill. 2d 471 (1998), for the proposition that "[w]here the testimony of a witness is neither contradicted, either by positive testimony or by circumstances, nor inherently improbable, and the witness has not been impeached, that testimony cannot be disregarded even by a jury." (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)

  4. People v. McClure

    218 Ill. 2d 375 (Ill. 2006)   Cited 76 times
    In People v. McClure, 218 Ill.2d 375, 379, 300 Ill.Dec. 50, 843 N.E.2d 308 (2006), this court explained that “the issuance of a statutory summary suspension protects the public from impaired drivers and swiftly removes them from our roadways ” (emphasis added).

              The laches doctrine bars claims by those who neglect their rights to the detriment of others. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303 (1998). Application of the laches doctrine requires a showing of lack of due diligence by the party asserting the claim and prejudice to the opposing party.

  5. People v. Youngerman

    342 Ill. App. 3d 518 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    This equitable defense bars claims by those who neglect their rights to the detriment of others, and requires a showing of a lack of due diligence by the party asserting the claim and prejudice to the party asserting the doctrine. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303 (1998).         In this case defendant "surrendered" himself to the Department in 1994 and the State filed its motion to amend the Thiem date in 2001.

  6. Horbach v. Kaczmarek

    288 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 78 times
    Affirming dismissal of conversion claim under Illinois law where plaintiff's right to return of allegedly converted money was conditional upon defendants' failure to meet certain performance conditions

    That doctrine applies when the plaintiff has waited for an unreasonable length of time to assert his claim and the defendant has been prejudiced by the delay. People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 231 Ill.Dec. 311, 696 N.E.2d 303, 312 (1998); Van Milligan v. Board of Fire Police Commissioners of Village of Glenview, 158 Ill.2d 85, 196 Ill.Dec. 665, 630 N.E.2d 830, 833 (1994). "The doctrine is grounded in the equitable notion that courts are reluctant to come to the aid of a party who has knowingly slept on his rights to the detriment of the opposing party."

  7. PONCE DE LEON v. OFFNER

    Case No. 02 C 3919, Case Nos. 03 C 3327 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2004)

    A successful laches defense requires a showing of prejudice caused by the other party's delay. See, e.g., People v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 490, 696 N.E.2d 303, 312 (1998). Here there is none. The defense is insufficient as a matter of law.

  8. People v. Ceja

    204 Ill. 2d 332 (Ill. 2003)   Cited 150 times
    Holding that consent under the eavesdropping statute may be express or implied; implied consent is consent in fact, inferred from the surrounding circumstances that indicate the individual knowingly agreed to the recording

    "Manifestly erroneous means arbitrary, unreasonable and not based on the evidence." People v. Wells, 182 Ill. 2d 471, 481 (1998). However, de novo review is appropriate when neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses is questioned.

  9. People v. Ballard

    206 Ill. 2d 151 (Ill. 2002)   Cited 102 times
    In Ballard, the Illinois Supreme Court held that, "The question of the competency of a confession is for the trial court alone to decide by a preponderance of the evidence, and its determination will not be disturbed on review unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence."

    "Manifestly erroneous means arbitrary, unreasonable and not based on the evidence." People v. Wells, 182 Ill. 2d 471, 481 (1998). However, de novo review is appropriate when neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses is questioned.

  10. Commonwealth v. Ocasio

    434 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2001)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating suppression order where police returned blank search warrant attached to inventory return after losing original; " If all the terms of the warrant can be reliably established through secondary means, ... the defendant will not be deprived of any opportunity to mount a challenge against the warrant.... [B]ecause there was evidence that the warrant once existed, the Commonwealth was entitled to try to establish, pursuant to the best evidence rule, the contents of the lost warrant through secondary evidence"

    Such issues should be aired at a separate proceeding. SeePeople v. Wells, 182 Ill.2d 471, 488-489 (1998) (separate proceeding needed after contents of lost warrant established). Allowing the Commonwealth to establish the contents of the lost warrant through application of the best evidence rule is consistent both with our decisions and those of other States.