People v. Raibley
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH,
specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur that the State forfeited the issue of untimeliness of the posttrial motion. However, I disagree with the majority’s holding that defendant did not consent to the search or the viewing of the videotapes. I disagree also with the majority’s apparent view that appellate courts should always review de novo the voluntariness of a consent. Voluntariness of a consent is only reviewed de novo where neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses is disputed. Anthony, 198 Ill. 2d at 201, 761 N.E.2d at 1191;…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. Carol Kozinski, Ilmi Fejzoski, James Havelka, Jeanette Martinez, James Brennan, James Abney, Mark Morgan, and Peter DemopoulosCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- People v. SimsIllinois Supreme Court · 2000
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.