199 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 219 Ill. 2d 353 - People v. Kolton (2006), 204 Ill. 2d 332 - People v. Ceja (2003)
55 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In re Oliver · Schmuck v. United States · 128 Ill. 2d 66 - People v. Flores · 91 Ill. 2d 346 - People v. Dixon · 63 Ill. 2d 23 - People v. Gilmore
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Once a lesser included offense is identified, the question remains whether the jury should be instructed on the lesser offense. The identification of a lesser included offense does not automatically give rise to a correlative right to have the jury instructed on the lesser offense. [Citation.] Rather, an ‘independent prerequisite’ must be met for the giving of a lesser included offense instruction [citation], regardless of the approach used in identifying the lesser included offense. *** A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction only if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense and acquit him or her of the greater offense.” People v. Novak, 163 Ill. 2d 93, 107-08 (1994).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““First, is the convicted offense indeed a lesser-included offense at all? To answer that question, we must examine the charging instrument and determine whether it sets forth a broad foundation or main outline of the lesser-included offense. Second, was it proper to find defendant guilty of this lesser-included offense? To answer that question, we must examine the evidence adduced at trial and determine whether it rationally supports a guilty finding. We cannot reach the second question without an affirmative answer to the first question.” (Emphases in original.) Baldwin, 199 Ill. 2d at 14-15 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“established by proof of the same or less than all of the facts or a less culpable mental state (or both), than that which is required to establish the commission of the offense charged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.