The People v. Kurtz

46 Citing cases

  1. People v. Guerrero

    2018 Ill. App. 2d 160920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 22 times

    k , 70 Ill. App. 3d 698, 27 Ill.Dec. 144, 388 N.E.2d 1107 (1979) (aggravated battery conviction reduced sua sponte to battery); People v. O'Neil , 50 Ill. App. 3d 900, 8 Ill.Dec. 871, 365 N.E.2d 1333 (1977) (rape conviction reduced sua sponte to attempted rape where evidence was insufficient to prove penetration); People v. Goolsby , 45 Ill. App. 3d 441, 4 Ill.Dec. 38, 359 N.E.2d 871 (1977) (murder conviction reduced sua sponte to voluntary manslaughter); People v. Plewka , 27 Ill. App. 3d 553, 327 N.E.2d 457 (1975) (indecent-liberties-with-a-child conviction reduced sua sponte to contributing to the sexual delinquency of a child); People v. Borden , 84 Ill. App. 2d 442, 228 N.E.2d 248 (1967) (burglary conviction reduced sua sponte to attempted burglary); People v. Kurtz , 69 Ill. App. 2d 282, 216 N.E.2d 524 (1966) (conviction of theft of property exceeding $150 in value reduced sua sponte to conviction of theft of property not exceeding $150 in value), aff'd in par &, rev'd in part , 37 Ill. 2d 103, 224 N.E.2d 817 (1967). ¶ 64 In each of these cases, the appellate court, apparently without the request of either party, exercised the power provided by Rule 615(b)(3).

  2. The People v. Tassone

    41 Ill. 2d 7 (Ill. 1968)   Cited 58 times
    Stating courts may notice matters of common knowledge

    In order to sustain a conviction of a felony the value of the property stolen must be shown to be in excess of $150. ( People v. Kurtz, 37 Ill.2d 103.) It is true that in this case there was no direct proof of value.

  3. People v. Washington

    121 Ill. App. 3d 479 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Washington, 121 Ill. App. 3d 479, 488, 76 Ill.Dec. 894, 459 N.E.2d 1029 (1984), which the State cites, the court considered a district court's response to potential jurors' concern about the death penalty.

    At that time, the court stated its belief that there had not been publicity which would affect the trial. Whether a motion for a continuance should be granted because of publicity concerning the case resides within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. ( People v. Kurtz (1967), 37 Ill.2d 103, 108, 224 N.E.2d 817; People v. Brinn (1965), 32 Ill.2d 232, 204 N.E.2d 724, cert. denied (1965), 382 U.S. 827, 15 L.Ed.2d 72, 86 S.Ct. 62.) In cases of pretrial publicity, the examination of prospective jurors on voir dire has been recognized as the most valuable means of ascertaining partiality or indifference among persons summoned as jurors. ( People v. Torres (1973), 54 Ill.2d 384, 388, 297 N.E.2d 142; People v. Kurtz (1967), 37 Ill.2d 103, 108.

  4. People v. Cole

    132 Ill. App. 2d 1041 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 6 times
    In People v. Cole, (Ill.App.2d), 271 N.E.2d 385, this court considered most of the cases urged here as warranting a new trial.

    "The examination of prospective jurors on voir dire is, in a typical instance of pretrial publicity, probably the most valuable means of ascertaining partiality or indifference among persons summoned as jurors." People v. Kurtz (1967), 37 Ill.2d 103, 108; 224 N.E.2d 817, 820; People v. Gendron (1969), 41 Ill.2d 351, 355; 243 N.E.2d 208, 211. • 3 If a juror meets the statutory qualifications, the determination of whether a challenge for cause should be allowed rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and his ruling will not be disturbed unless he has clearly abused his discretion.

  5. People v. Cobetto

    66 Ill. 2d 488 (Ill. 1977)   Cited 15 times
    In People v. Cobetto (1977), 66 Ill. 488, 363 N.E.2d 854, the defendant therein was found guilty of receiving stolen property exceeding $150 in value.

    The standard for determining whether the value of property at the time and place of the theft exceeded the statutory amount of $150 is the property's fair cash market value. ( People v. Kurtz, 37 Ill.2d 103, 110-11.) Evidence presented may be sufficient, however, to support a conviction for the felony amount, though the testimony of witnesses was not addressed precisely to the "fair cash market value."

  6. People v. Redmond

    59 Ill. 2d 328 (Ill. 1974)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that the quantum of evidence necessary to raise an affirmative defense is that the evidence must be sufficient to raise an issue of fact for the jury creating a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt

    Other decisions which defendant cites were also predicated upon the application of Rule 27. People v. Kurtz, 37 Ill.2d 103, 110 (value of stolen property); People v. Ritchie, 36 Ill.2d 392, 397-98 (multiple convictions); People v. Petropoulos, 34 Ill.2d 179, 181 (speedy trial). Defendant's argument relating to section 6 of article VI of the 1970 Constitution is without merit.

  7. People v. Torres

    54 Ill. 2d 384 (Ill. 1973)   Cited 86 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Torres (1973), 54 Ill.2d 384, 388-90, this court noted that the voir dire examination is, in instances of pretrial publicity, the most valuable tool by which to ascertain partiality or indifference among persons summoned as jurors.

    "The examination of prospective jurors on voir dire is, in a typical instance of pretrial publicity, probably the most valuable means of ascertaining partiality or indifference among persons summoned as jurors." People v. Kurtz, 37 Ill.2d 103, at 108. The prospective jurors on examination did not reflect a deep-seated prejudice against the defendant.

  8. The People v. Hoffman

    45 Ill. 2d 221 (Ill. 1970)   Cited 59 times
    Rejecting the defendant's argument that the defendant was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in light of testimony of defense witnesses that contradicted the arresting officers' testimony

    Furthermore, there has been no showing that the ruling of the trial judge was erroneous. The granting of a continuance was within the sound discretion of the trial judge and absent a showing of abuse, that determination will not be reversed. ( People v. Kurtz, 37 Ill.2d 103.) Further, there was no showing why a change of venue to the "State of New York" was appropriate or even how the State of New York could attain jurisdiction over this matter.

  9. The People v. Marino

    44 Ill. 2d 562 (Ill. 1970)   Cited 105 times
    In People v. Marino, 44 Ill. 2d 562, 256 N.E.2d 770 (1970), the Illinois Supreme Court considered the analogous sections of the 1963 version of the theft statute.

    As for the defendants' repeated requests for a continuance, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in denying them. Granting a continuance based upon publicity attendant to a trial is a matter largely committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We see no abuse of that discretion here. ( People v. Kurtz, 37 Ill.2d 103, 108; People v. Wilson, 29 Ill.2d 82, 90.) There is absolutely no showing in the record before us that the newspaper articles referred to by the defendants affected them prejudicially during the trial. It should be noted that they did not ask to have the jury sequestered, which might have been appropriate under the circumstances.

  10. The People v. Nelson

    41 Ill. 2d 364 (Ill. 1968)   Cited 83 times
    In People v. Nelson, 41 Ill.2d 364, 367, we stated that "The burden of presenting mitigating circumstances in a record falls upon a defendant and it is he who must make a substantial showing in order to justify a reduction of sentence on review.

    This court has consistently approved the foregoing guide lines where the reduction of sentence by virtue of the rule and its antecedent statute has been directly raised. ( People v. Cage, 34 Ill.2d 530; People v. Hicks, 35 Ill.2d 390; People v. Kurtz, 37 Ill.2d 103; People v. Crews, 38 Ill.2d 331; People v. Gold, 38 Ill.2d 510; People v. Caldwell, 39 Ill.2d 346.) In none of these cases has a reduction in punishment been made, but they do recognize the right to reduce sentence.