Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Price

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 18, 2005No. 3-03-0495 RelPublished

1Concurrence

PRESIDING JUSTICE SLATER,

specially concurring:

I agree that, based on the wording of the charges in the indictment, the two theft convictions are legally inconsistent. I also agree that, under such circumstances, existing precedent appears to require reversal and a new trial on all counts. See, e.g., People v. Fornear, 176 Ill. 2d 523, 680 N.E.2d 1383 (1997); People v. Porter, 168 Ill. 2d 201, 659 N.E.2d 915 (1995). I note, however, that our supreme court reexamined the issue of inconsistent verdicts in People v. Jones, 207 Ill. 2d 122, 797 N.E.2d 640 (2003). In Jones the court explicitly…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. People v. FlowersIllinois Supreme Court · 1990
  3. The PEOPLE v. MarinoIllinois Supreme Court · 1970
  4. People v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 2003
  5. People v. HofferIllinois Supreme Court · 1985

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API