Skip to main content

People v. Davis

Citations

  • 706 N.E.2d 473
  • 185 Ill. 2d 317
  • 235 Ill. Dec. 918
  • 1998 Ill. LEXIS 1920

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the State did not meet its burden of showing that the sentencing judge’s refusal to consider all mitigating evidence regarding good jail behavior was harmless
  • holding that the State did not meet its burden of showing that the sentencing judge’s refusal to consider all mitigating evidence regarding good jail behavior was harmless
  • explaining that an improper denial of cross-examination may be harmless for various reasons, including when the excluded testimony was cumulative with other evidence
  • stating that, although the defendant waived his claim that the trial court improperly refused to consider certain mitigating evidence at the defendant’s death penalty hearing, we would review the claim for error, as it concerned the fundamental fairness of that proceeding
  • stating that, although the defendant waived his claim that the trial court improperly refused to consider certain mitigating evidence at the defendant's death penalty hearing, we would review the claim for error, as it concerned the fundamental fairness of that proceeding
  • reviewing trial judge’s alleged refusal to consider mitigating evidence in capital sentencing hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bilandic, Harrison, Heiple, Freeman, Miller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.