Appellate Court of Illinois· 8/29/2003

People v. Donald R.

Citations

796 N.E.2d 670
343 Ill. App. 3d 237
277 Ill. Dec. 584
2003 Ill. App. LEXIS 1103

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a reasonable fact finder could infer that a sixteen-year-old boy acted for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal when he exposed his penis to a six-year-old girl and had her touch his penis, based in part on the fact that he was significantly closer to adulthood
inferring the existence of a requisite state of mind from circumstantial evidence is typically the job of a factfinder
admonishing trial court for stating it was bound by Rule 23 order in unrelated case
applying criminal standard to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in juvenile sex offender proceedings
stating, “a fundamental unfairness results when a trial court, sua sponte, relies on an unpublished order in reaching its decision”
admonishing trial court for stating it was bound by Rule 23 order in unrelated case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Schmidt, Holdridge, Slater

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named People v. Donald R.

3 other CourtListener records share this case 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.