Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Raibley

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided April 30, 2003No. 4-00-0587Published

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

  1. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. 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
  5. People v. SimsIllinois Supreme Court · 2000

8 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