non-IPI instruction in Illinois

2026“Illinois pattern instructions were ‘painstakingly drafted with the use of simple, brief and unslanted language so as to clearly and concisely state the law.’ ” People v. Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d 189, 212 (2002) (quoting People v. Haywood, 82 Ill.2d 540, 545 (1980)).

2020“A non-IPI instruction should be used only if the IPIs for criminal cases do not contain an accurate instruction and if the tendered non-IPI instruction is accurate, simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument.” People v. Ortiz, 2017 IL App (1st) 142559, ¶ 50 (citing People v. Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d 189, 211 (2002)). ¶ 48 “A reviewing court will reverse a circuit court’s determination about what jury instructions to give only if the trial court abused its discretion.” People v. Polk, 407 Ill.

2025Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points not argued are forfeited ***.”). 9 ¶ 30 Therefore, we limit our analysis to whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving a non-IPI instruction to the jury. “ ‘ “An abuse of discretion will be found only where the court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” ’ ” People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44, 106 (2011) (quoting People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 68 (2009), quoting People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 20 (2000)). ¶ 31 It is well established that the Illinois Supreme Court does not

2025Bush, 157 Ill. 2d at 257 . ¶ 32 However, the language in Bush must be tempered with Rule 451(a) which graces the trial court with discretion to provide a non-IPI instruction which covers subjects that it determines necessary.

2005People v. Tsombanidis , 235 Ill.

2005Tsombanidis , 235 Ill.

2026Conversely, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a non-IPI instruction if there is an applicable IPI instruction or the essence of the refused instruction is covered by other given instructions.” People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 412-13 (2000). ¶ 15 Here, in drafting the instructions for DWLR, the committee chose not to define the word “highway,” evidently concluding that reasonable jurors would understand its meaning and be able to apply it in the vast majority of cases without an instruction.

2026Conversely, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a non-IPI instruction if there is an applicable IPI instruction or the essence of the refused instruction is covered by other given instructions.” People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 412-13 (2000). ¶ 15 Here, in drafting the instructions for DWLR, the committee chose not to define the word “highway,” evidently concluding that reasonable jurors would understand its meaning and be able to apply it in the vast majority of cases without an instruction.

2025Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182, ¶ 14 ; Ill.

2025Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182, ¶ 14 ; Ill.

2017The trial court gave the following non-IPI instruction submitted by Loyola: “Under the reckless infliction of emotional distress claim, extreme and outrageous conduct means conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized community, and is such that the intensity and duration of the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities could be expected to endure it.” ¶ 59 The language in this instruction was taken from our supreme court’s opinion in McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78

2017The trial court gave the following non-IPI instruction submitted by Loyola: “Under the reckless infliction of emotional distress claim, extreme and outrageous conduct means conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized community, and is such that the intensity and duration of the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities could be expected to endure it.” &59 The language in this instruction was taken from our supreme court’s opinion in McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78,

2023He further argues that this presumption improperly shifted the burden to defendant to prove he legally possessed the hydrocodone. ¶ 16 “Where there is no IPI jury instruction on a subject on which the court determines the jury should be instructed, the court has the discretion to give a non-IPI instruction.” People v. Hudson, 222 Ill. 2d 392, 400 (2006).

2023“Where there is no IPI jury instruction on a subject on which the court determines the jury should be instructed, the court has the discretion to give a non-IPI instruction.” Id. at 400 .

2025The question thus becomes whether the court’s instructions in this case, particularly IPI No. 503, covered the essence of a “mere presence” instruction. ¶ 43 In answering this question in the affirmative, we find People v. Nutall, 312 Ill.

2022“Refusal to give a non-IPI instruction does not constitute an abuse of discretion however, if there is an applicable IPI instruction and/or the essence of the refused instruction is covered by other given instructions.” People v. Nutall, 312 Ill.

2025Id. ¶ 28 Here, defendant argues that the non-IPI instruction “was not an accurate and impartial statement of the law” and further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in giving the instruction.

2025Id. ¶ 28 Here, defendant argues that the non-IPI instruction “was not an accurate and impartial statement of the law” and further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in giving the instruction.

2025See People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008) (A non-IPI must be “an accurate, simple, brief, impartial, and nonargumentative statement of the law.”). ¶ 23 Still, “[t]he function of jury instructions is to provide the jury with accurate legal principles to apply to the evidence so it can reach a correct conclusion.” Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 51 .

2024People v. Tompkins, 2023 IL 127805, ¶ 42 (citing People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008)). ¶ 59 The instruction in question, given over plaintiff’s objection, read: - 17 - No. 1-22-1365 The law recognizes that condominium association officers enjoy a privilege to use their business judgment and discretion when acting in the best interests of the condominium association.

2012The trial court must give a non-IPI instruction if refusing to give a non-IPI instruction would result in the jury not being instructed as to a defense theory of the case "which is supported by some evidence." People v. Ehlert, 274 Ill.App.3d 1026, 1037 , 211 Ill.Dec. 243 , 654 N.E.2d 705 (1995). ¶ 70 In tendering a modified IPI instruction at the trial involving R.C., defendant argued to the court that the IPI instruction was inappropriate where the indictment charged defendant with having only a "position of trust" and not one of authority or supervision.

2012The trial court must give a non-IPI instruction if refusing to give a non-IPI instruction would result in the jury not being instructed as to a defense theory of the case "which is supported by some evidence." People v. Ehlert, 274 Ill.App.3d 1026, 1037 , 211 Ill.Dec. 243 , 654 N.E.2d 705 (1995). ¶ 70 In tendering a modified IPI instruction at the trial involving R.C., defendant argued to the court that the IPI instruction was inappropriate where the indictment charged defendant with having only a "position of trust" and not one of authority or supervision.

1996People v. Sanchez, 115 Ill. 2d 238, 282 (1986).

1996People v. Sanchez, 115 Ill. 2d 238, 282 (1986).

1989The supreme court held that the IPI instruction given on the defense of voluntary intoxication was “a simple, clear and concise statement [of the law and as such] needs no embellishment, explanation or further definition.” ( 82 Ill. 2d at 545 , 413 N.E.2d at 413 .) The court further held that the State’s non-IPI instruction was confusing, ambiguous and conflicted with IPI Criminal No. 24.02.

1989The supreme court held that the IPI instruction given on the defense of voluntary intoxication was “a simple, clear and concise statement [of the law and as such] needs no embellishment, explanation or further definition.” ( 82 Ill. 2d at 545 , 413 N.E.2d at 413 .) The court further held that the State’s non-IPI instruction was confusing, ambiguous and conflicted with IPI Criminal No. 24.02.

2025A trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing a non-IPI instruction where the “essence of the refused instruction is covered by the other given instructions.” Gilliam, 172 Ill. 2d at 519 .

2025Thus, “a trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a non-IPI instruction if there is an applicable IPI instruction or the essence of the refused instruction is covered by other given instructions.” Id. ¶ 40 Here, the trial court instructed on IPI No. 5.03, which informed the jury that “A person is legally responsible for the conduct of another person when, either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense, he knowingly solicits, aids, abets, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in th

2019Id. at 273-74 .

2019See, e.g., Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 281-82 (concluding that the erroneous giving of a pattern jury instruction and the failure to give one of the defendant’s proposed alternatives did not constitute reversible error where the trial court allowed defense counsel to discuss the relevant evidence during closing argument).

2025A trial court has the discretion to give a non-IPI instruction in a criminal case provided that instruction is “accurate, - 13 - No. 1-23-0037 simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument.” People v. Ortiz, 2017 IL App (1st) 142559, ¶ 50 .

2025“A non-IPI instruction should be used only if the IPIs for criminal cases do not contain an accurate instruction and if the tendered non-IPI instruction is accurate, simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument. [Citation.] Additionally, the instructions as a whole must not be misleading or confusing.” Id.

1993(Thompkins, 121 Ill. 2d at 441 .) IPI Criminal 2d No. 3.18 (“Weighing Expert Testimony”) contains only a committee note which states: “The Committee recommends that no instruction be given on this subject. *** The believability of expert testimony is a proper subject of closing argument.” (Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 3.18 (2d ed. 1981).) In the instant case, the jury was adequately instructed as to defendant’s theory of the case, and the trial court found that the non-IPI instruction would not serve any purpose.

1993It is well-settled that an Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI) shall be used when applicable, unless the court determines that it does not accurately state the law. (134 Ill.2d R. 451(a); Ramey, 151 Ill.2d at 535 , 177 Ill.Dec. 449 , 603 N.E.2d 519 .) The decision whether to give a non-IPI instruction is within the discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. ( Thompkins, 121 Ill.2d at 441 , 117 Ill.Dec. 927 , 521 N.E.2d 38 .) IPI Criminal 2d No. 3.18 ("Weighing Expert Testimony") contains only a committee note which states: "The Committe

2000App. 3d 530, 540 , 485 N.E.2d 1144 (1985) (“court must give a non-IPI instruction ‘if the refusal to give a non-IPI instruction results in the jury not being instructed as to a defense theory of the case which is supported by some evidence’ ”).

1995App. 3d 750, 759 , 513 N.E.2d 1154 .) The court must give a non-IPI instruction "if the refusal to give a non-IPI instruction results in the jury not being instructed as to a defense theory of the case which is supported by some evidence.” People v. Hanson (1985), 138 Ill.