21 Ill. App. 3d 256 - People v. King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(b) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for a different offense, or for the same offense based upon different facts, if such former prosecution: (1) Resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal, and the subsequent prosecution is for an offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the former prosecution; or was for an offense with which the defendant should have been charged on the former prosecution, as provided in Section 3 — 3 of this Code (unless the court ordered a separate trial of such charge); or was for an offense which involves the same conduct, unless each prosecution requires proof of a fact not required on the other prosecution, or the offense was not consummated when the former trial began; ® (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 74 Ill. App. 3d 543 - People v. Deems

2. “" 'there must be a valid indictment ***. So, where the indictment or information is so defective in form or substance that it will not support a conviction, it cannot form the basis of proceedings which will put the accused in jeopardy and bar another prosecution.’ ” People v. King, 21 Ill. App. 3d 256, 257 , 314 N.E.2d 694 (1974), quoting 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 246 (1961).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 283 Ill. App. 3d 1056 - People v. Schram