206 Ill. App. 3d 310 - People v. Shannon’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 159 Ill. 2d 217 - People v. Childs (1994), 294 Ill. App. 3d 496 - People v. Corrie (1998)
28 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 Sandstrom v. Montana · 79 Ill. 2d 103 - People v. Greer · 97 Ill. 2d 252 - People v. Williams · 76 Ill. 2d 365 - People v. Foster · 66 Ill. 2d 317 - People v. Monroe
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[I]t is not only the right but the duty of the court to reinstruct on any question of law arising from the facts on which the jury say they are in doubt, and on which they ask further instructions. Where the jury make their difficulties explicit, the judge should clear them away with concrete accuracy; and where the question asked is not clear, it is the duty of the court to seek clarification.’ ” Harmon, 104 Ill. App. 2d at 301 , 244 N.E.2d at 361 , quoting 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law §1376, at 1000.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To sustain the charge of first degree murder, the State must prove the following propositions: First: That the defendant, or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, performed the acts which caused the death of Linda Sanborn; and Second: That when the defendant, or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, did so, he intended to kill or do great bodily harm to Linda San-born; or he knew that his acts would cause death to Linda San-born; or he knew that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Linda Sanborn; or he was committing the offense of residential burglary. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A trial court may exercise its discretion and properly decline to answer a jury's inquiries where the instructions are readily understandable and sufficiently explain the relevant law, where further instructions would serve no useful purpose or would potentially mislead the jury, when the jury's inquiry involves a question of fact, or if the giving of an answer would cause the court to express an opinion which would likely direct a verdict one way or another.”
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.