People v. Carroll

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding exclusion of evidence “crucial to the defendant’s defense” entitled the defendant to a new trial even were evidence would have merely corroborated the defendant’s testimony
• noting that such statements are not hearsay
• statements offered for their effect on the listener or to explain the subsequent course of conduct of another are not hearsay
• statements offered for their effect on the listener or to explain the subsequent course of conduct of another are not hearsay
• “statements offered for their effect on the listener or to explain the subsequent course of conduct of another are not hearsay”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Sangster
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2014-05-15· cited 46×
• People v. Sundling
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2012-01-31· cited 23×
• People v. French
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2017-05-01· cited 20×
• People v. Hodor
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2003-07-07· cited 5×
• Neighborhood Lending Services, Inc. v. Griffin
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2018-08-24· cited 4×
• People v. Gray
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2004-03-26

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Williams v. Nagel
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1994-10-27· cited 29×
• People v. Quick
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1992-10-07· cited 23×
• People v. Smith
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1992-11-18· cited 13×
• People v. Brandon
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1996-08-30· cited 12×
• City of Quincy v. Daniels
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1993-06-17· cited 12×
• People v. Jackson
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1997-12-18· cited 11×
• People v. Banks
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1996-06-19· cited 10×