# People v. Nieves

> Illinois Supreme Court · November 16, 2000 · 193 Ill. 2d 513

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732224

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. HECTOR NIEVES, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 16, 2000
- **Citations:** 193 Ill. 2d 513; 251 Ill. Dec. 155; 739 N.E.2d 1277; 2000 Ill. LEXIS 1704
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bilandic
- **Judges:** Rathje, Heiple, Bilandic, Miller
- **Cited by:** 175 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732224

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the improper introduction of other-crimes evidence was harmless because any prejudicial effect “was overshadowed by the substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt—most notably, his own uncontested statement” (emphasis added)
- recognizing that the improper admission of other crimes evidence is subject to harmless error review and that any such error is harmless where the defendant suffers no prejudice is not denied a fair trial
- finding that prejudicial effect from isolated reference to defendant’s criminal activity in another state was overshadowed by the substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt
- finding evidence of defendant’s guilt was “substantial enough that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty” even without the State’s improper argument
- finding the potential prejudicial effect “produced by this one isolated and cryptic reference to defendant's criminal activity in New York was overshadowed by the substantial evidence of defendant's guilt”

## Opinion text

JUSTICE BILANDIC joins in this special concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732224. Public record. Not legal advice.