People v. Yantis

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Martin

    226 Ill. App. 3d 753 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 7 times
    In Martin, the appellate court concluded that the State may call a defendant to testify at a probation revocation hearing to elicit testimony which would show that the defendant had violated conditions of his probation, "but which would not incriminate him in any other proceedings."

    " In People v. Yantis (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 769, 466 N.E.2d 603, 604, the State called the defendant as its only witness at the hearing on the State's petition to revoke defendant's probation. The State's petition alleged that he had failed to comply with the conditions of his probation that he pay restitution, costs, and a fine.

  2. People v. McNairy

    309 Ill. App. 3d 220 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    This state, at about the same time, had held that probation revocation proceedings were criminal in nature, albeit with a lesser burden of proof, and, therefore, a defendant could not be called to testify against himself in such a proceeding. See People v. Yantis, 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 771 (1984). However, this court commented that Yantis was "effectively overruled by Murphy."

  3. People v. Neckopulos

    284 Ill. App. 3d 660 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. Neckopulos, 284 Ill. App. 3d 660 (1996), the defendant received TASC probation, which was later revoked because she failed to complete therapy, missing most of her treatment sessions.

    226 Ill. App.3d at 759, 589 N.E.2d at 818. Accord People v. Davis, 216 Ill. App.3d 884, 576 N.E.2d 510 (1991); People v. Clark, 268 Ill. App.3d 810, 645 N.E.2d 590 (1995); contra People v. Yantis, 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 466 N.E.2d 603 (1984). Neckopulos' reliance on Yantis, in support of her argument that the fifth amendment right to remain silent exists at probation revocation hearings, is unwarranted.

  4. People v. Bedenkop

    252 Ill. App. 3d 419 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    Reversing sentence on VOP premised on defendant's conduct in giving birth to an addicted baby while on probation and on the court's desire to insulate defendant from further opportunities for pregnancy

    The fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination exists at revocation probation hearings and counsel is ineffective if he does not control the assertion and the waiver of the privilege. ( People v. Yantis (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 466 N.E.2d 603.) Instead, defense counsel specifically asked defendant whether she used cocaine and whether her baby was born addicted to cocaine.

  5. People v. Davis

    216 Ill. App. 3d 884 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Reversing revocation of probation for probationer's failure to pay and remanding for trial court to determine whether an additional period of probation should be granted within which restitution may be paid where there was evidence that probationer made restitution payments before becoming unemployed and the record did not show that defendant refused to work merely to avoid restitution

    See Minnesota v. Murphy (1984), 465 U.S. 420, 435-36 n. 7, 79 L.Ed.2d 409, 424-25 n. 7, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1146-47 n. 7 (compelling probationer to appear to discuss noncriminal violations of probation does not offend the privilege against self-incrimination); 3 W. LaFave J. Israel, Criminal Procedure ยง 25.4, at 164 (1984). Contra People v. Yantis (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 466 N.E.2d 603 (effectively overruled by Murphy). We find the State's reliance on People v. Moaton (1989), 182 Ill. App.3d 161, 537 N.E.2d 989, and People v. Cottrell (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 364, 490 N.E.2d 950, to be misplaced.

  6. Burroughs v. State

    773 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 4 times

    We have reviewed the authorities relied upon by appellant and conclude they are not controlling in this proceeding. In People v. Yantis, 125 Ill.App.3d 767, 81 Ill.Dec. 17, 466 N.E.2d 603 (1984), while it was held that counsel was ineffective in a probation revocation proceeding, counsel permitted defendant to testify when there was no tactical advantage to do so and without defendant's testimony there was no proof of failing to comply with financial obligations imposed by the sentence. State v. Green, 236 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. 1951); and Ray v. State, 644 S.W.2d 663 (Mo.App. 1982) relied upon by movant are inapposite.