People v. Urioste

How courts have described this case

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

• “Where a defendant contests guilt based upon self-defense, compulsion, entrapment, necessity, or a plea of insanity, identity ceases to be the issue.”
• “had the legislature intended the overwhelming nature of other evidence to be a factor in granting a motion filed pursuant to section 116 — 3, it would have said so”
• question of whether identity was an issue under similar statute subject to de novo review
• defendant could not show identity was issue at trial, as he pursued insanity defense at trial
• “had the legislature intended the overwhelming nature of other evidence to be a factor in granting a motion filed pursuant to section 116–3, it would have said so”
• “[O]ur legislature wanted postconviction forensic testing to occur only in those cases where such testing could discover new evidence at sharp odds with a previously rendered guilty verdict based upon criminal acts that the defendant denied having engaged in.” (Emphasis in original.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).