By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Grayer, 2023 IL 128871 (December). Episode 1019 (Duration 8:14)
Although no longer recognized as an affirmative defense, we hold that the legislature’s decision to amend section 6-3 does not serve as a categorical bar to presenting evidence of voluntary intoxication as a means of attacking the State’s claim that defendant had the requisite specific intent to commit the charged offense.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Grayer, 2022 IL App (1st) 210808 (July). Episode 954 (Duration 6:29)
The Slabon court’s reliance on Cunningham for the proposition that a defendant’s voluntary intoxication may be relevant where it is so extreme as to “suspend entirely the power of reasoning,” such that a defendant is incapable of forming a specific intent or malice, is misplaced.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Lewis, 2022 IL 126705 (June). Episode 948 (Duration 4:57)
Once defendant sufficiently raises an entrapment defense, the entrapment statute requires the State to prove (1) defendant was predisposed and (2) the government agents merely afforded him the opportunity or facility for committing the offenses. 720 ILCS 5/7-12 (West 2014).
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Yanez, 2022 IL App (3d) 200007 (May). Episode 945 (Duration 7:03)
Cases involving threats to persons inside a dwelling are governed by different standards, and it is far easier to establish a defense in such cases.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Williams, 2020 IL App (1st) 163417 (February). Episode 756 (Duration 17:26)
An example of what not to say in closing argument.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Tolbert, 2016 IL 117846 (January). Episode 137 (Duration 3:45)
AUUW liability by a person under 21 can be avoided if the minor is “on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s permission.” [Read more…]
By Samuel Partida, Jr.
See People v. Costello, 2014 IL App (3d) 121001 (October). Episode 044 (Duration 12:42)
The Impossibility Defense is an affirmative defenses that must be raised in the first instance by the accused. The burden shifts to the State when the issue is first raised.