37 Ill. App. 3d 895 - People v. Meredith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Beginning with People v. Schlenger (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 63 , this court has decided a series of cases culminating in holdings that a person may not be convicted of multiple offenses arising out of the same act or the same conduct and that only the judgment and sentence for the most serious of the offenses may stand. (See also People v. Duszkewycz (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 257 ; People v. Stewart (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 310 ; People v. Whittington (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 405 ; People v. Lerch (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 78 ; People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62 ; People v. Cox (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 101 ; People v. Lilly (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 493 ; People v. Scott (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 353 .) Defendant contends that these cases are applicable to his multiple convictions and that only the conviction of murder, the most serious of the offenses, may stand. We find instead that these decisions affect only the convictions of burglary and armed robbery. The two men entered the Calderone home for the purpose of robbing the Calderones. Thus, although burglary and armed robbery involve different elements of proof and the men committed a series of acts, their unauthorized entry with the intent to commit theft and the actual theft by means of armed robbery constitute two offenses arising from the same conduct in robbing the Calderones. Only the conviction of the most serious of the two offenses, armed robbery, can stand, and the judgment and sentence on the burglary conviction must be reversed. These cases do not, however, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 46 Ill. App. 3d 365 - People v. Johnson

2. ““Photographic identification procedures should not be employed when a defendant is in custody. [People v. Holiday, 47 Ill. 2d 300 , 265 N.E.2d 634 .] Defendant failed to object to the introduction of the testimony of the photographic identification on this basis. Apart from that procedural deficiency, however, defendant’s custodial status is not the standard by which we must determine the propriety of the photographic identification. (People v. Jackson, 54 Ill. 2d 143 , 295 N.E.2d 462 .) The test remains, considering the totality of the circumstances, whether the identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. People v. Williams, 60 Ill. 2d 1 , 322 N.E.2d 819 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 73 Ill. App. 3d 21 - People v. Mikel