264 Ill. App. 3d 310 - People v. Weber’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2023
9 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 92 Ill. 2d 545 - People v. Weaver · 118 Ill. 2d 163 - People v. Cisewski · 47 Ill. 2d 501 - The PEOPLE v. Heard · 49 Ill. 2d 565 - The PEOPLE v. Coleman · 82 Ill. 2d 534 - People v. Davis
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The law regarding disclosure of rebuttal witnesses in criminal cases is well settled. Until the prosecutor forms the intent to call the witness, disclosure is not required. [Citation.] This court has held that `[b]ecause the State may not know if a witness will be called in rebuttal until the defense testimony is heard, the State need not inform the defense of its intention to call a rebuttal witness until that intention is formed.' [Citation.] When the State fails to make timely disclosure of a rebuttal witness, the trial court is not required to exclude the rebuttal witness' testimony. ( People v. Bock (1993), 242 Ill.App.3d 1056, 1068 [, 183 Ill.Dec. 525 ], 611 N.E.2d 1173 [, 1181].) In Bock , defendant objected to the State's decision to call a rebuttal witness who was identified on the morning of the trial. Defendant alleged that, because the witness was disclosed on the day of the trial, he had not had an opportunity to do any investigation. However, defendant did not request a continuance and the court allowed the witness to testify. On appeal, the appellate court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the testimony of the rebuttal witness. ( Bock, 242 Ill.App.3d at 1069 [, 183 Ill.Dec. 525 , 611 N.E.2d at 1182 ].) The court reasoned that defendant had an opportunity to interview the rebuttal witness, failed to request a continuance to conduct further investigation and cross-examined the witness during trial." People v. Weber, 264 Ill.App.3d 310, 315-16 , 201 I”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“defendant's reliance on Supreme Court Rule 220 is misplaced”
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.