Cases

890 N.E.2d 515 (2008) 229 Ill.2d 237 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Wade BEACHEM, Appellee. No. 104976. Supreme Court of Illinois. May 22, 2008. *516 Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (James E. Fitzgerald, Peter D. Fischer, Mary L.

JUSTICE O’MARA FROSSARD delivered the opinion of the court: Following a bench trial, defendant Wade Beachem was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to six years in the Illinois state penitentiary. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $3,704. On appeal, defendant cla

Docket No. 104976. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. WADE BEACHEM, Appellee. Opinion filed May 22, 2008. JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Freeman, Fitzgerald, Kilbride, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgme

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

No. 2--00--0789 _________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT __________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Ci

768 N.E.2d 746 (2001) 331 Ill. App.3d 1 263 Ill.Dec. 665 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Augustin V. ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2-00-0789. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. December 13, 2001. As Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing April 26, 2002.

JUSTICE GARMAN, dissenting: The plurality concludes that the phrase “defendants sued by the plaintiff’ in section 2 — 1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1117 (West 1998)) is ambiguous. It then construes the phrase as referring to only those defendants who were sued by the plaintiff but did not enter into a good-faith settlement agreement prior to the entry of

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court People v. Rogers, 2012 IL App (1st) 102031 Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Caption DEVON ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant. District & No. First District, Second Division Docket No. 1-10-2031 Filed June 29, 2012 Held

784 S.W.2d 510 (1990) Charles Albert BURNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Nos. 05-89-00048-CR, 05-89-00049-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. January 15, 1990. Discretionary Review Refused April 4, 1990. *511 Garland D. Cardwell, Sherman, for appellant. Jonathan H. Kamras, Asst. County

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW CAMPBELL, Judge. Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of driving while intoxicated. V.A.C.S., Art. 6701l -1 (1977).1 Punishment was assessed at 15 days confinement in jail and a $500 fine. The Fifth Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed appellant’s conviction. Thomas v. State, No. 05-

497 N.W.2d 74 (1993) Clayton RUNCK, Jr., Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee. Civ. No. 910259. Supreme Court of North Dakota. February 23, 1993. *75 Brothers & Beauchene, Fargo, for petitioner and appellant; argued by Mark A. Beauchene. Appearance by Clayton Runck, Jr. John Taint

Peterson, Justice. *267**179The State is prosecuting Andrea Elliott for driving under the influence of alcohol. When Elliott was arrested, she refused to submit to a breath test. Georgia statutes allow the State to use her refusal against her in her crim

305 Ga. 179 FINAL COPY S18A1204. ELLIOTT v. THE STATE. PETERSON, Justice. The State is prosecuting Andrea Elliott for driving under the influence of alcohol. When Elliott was arrested, she refused to submit to a breath test. Georgia statutes allow the State to use her refusal against her in her criminal trial, and the State has sought to do precisely that. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitutio

OPINION This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by firearms. After a verdict of guilty the punishment was assessed by the court at 25 years. At the outset we are confronted with appellant's contention that the trial judge fundamentally erred in failing to declare a mistrial on his own motion because the in-court identification was so conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that he was denied due process when viewed in light of the totality of t

CATES, Judge (concurring specially). After Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, this affirmance cannot apply as a precedent for trials after June 12, 1967. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. Hence, I think this case falls under Code 1940, T. 13, § 66, so as to do away with the need for an opinion to explain the decision.

35 Md. App. 472 (1977) 372 A.2d 243 JAMES REED, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 655, September Term, 1976. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided April 7, 1977. The cause was argued before GILBERT, C.J., and MOYLAN and LISS, JJ. William T. Wood, Assigned Public Defender, for appellant. Deborah K. Handel, Assistant

*75LAWSON, Justice. The appeal is from a judgment of conviction for rape with infliction of the death penalty. The victim, a white woman, was ravished by a Negro man on June 27, 1959. The appellant, Drewey Aaron, Jr., a Negro, was indicted by a grand jury of Montgomery County on July 17, 1959. On July 20, 1959, before a

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING ONION, Presiding Judge. On rehearing, appellant vigorously asserts this court failed to answer his first ground of error on original submission.1 He contends that by briefs and oral arguments he has sought to make clear his proposition that the introduction at his 1968 trial of his handwriting exemplars taken in 1963 was in violatio