28 Ill. App. 3d 67 - People v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 6 Ill. App. 3d 858 - People v. Zazzetti · People v. Durand · 81 Ill. App. 2d 125 - People v. Rinehart
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The State confuses the distinction between the burden of proof and the burden of going forward with the evidence. It is a firmly settled proposition of law that the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant no matter what his defense may be. [Citation.] We view section 24—2(f) as placing the burden on defendant to produce a quantum of evidence sufficient to place the question of exemption in issue. Clearly, an exemption is an affirmative defense as defined by the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 3—2), and * ° * once an affirmative defense is raised the burden is on the State to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) ‘Affirmative defense’ means that unless the State’s evidence raises the issue involving the alleged defense, the defendant, to raise the issue, must present some evidence thereon. (b) If the issue involved in an affirmative defense is raised then the State must sustain the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue together with all the other elements of the offense.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 3 — 2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“«o # e security guards while actually engaged in the performance of the duties of their employment or commuting between their homes and places of employment, provided that such commuting is accomplished within one horn: from departure from home or place of employment, as the case may be, * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Francis
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.