omitted instruction in Illinois

2024The supreme court has explained that under this strict test, “the erroneous omission of a jury instruction rises to the level of plain error only when the omission creates a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.” Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d at 8 ; cf. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 155 (1977) (finding no constitutional violation resulted from an omitted instruction when the defendant’s “claim of prejudice [wa]s based on the failure to give any explanation beyond the rea

2021The plain error rule “does not require that defendant prove beyond doubt that [his] trial was unfair because the omitted instruction misled the jury to convict [him].” Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d at 12 .

2015People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010) (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000)). - 17 - No. 1-12-0958 instructions, the Illinois Supreme Court has enumerated a specific test for second-prong plain error: whether the omitted instruction created a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.

2015People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010) (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000)). - 17 - No. 1-12-0958 instructions, the Illinois Supreme Court has enumerated a specific test for second-prong plain error: whether the omitted instruction created a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.

2015People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010) (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000)). - 17 - No. 1-12-0958 instructions, the Illinois Supreme Court has enumerated a specific test for second-prong plain error: whether the omitted instruction created a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.

2015People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010) (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347-48 (2000)). - 17 - No. 1-12-0958 instructions, the Illinois Supreme Court has enumerated a specific test for second-prong plain error: whether the omitted instruction created a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.

2025Pegram, 87 Ill. 2d at 173-74 ; Ogunsola, 87 Ill. 2d at 223 .

2025Pegram, 87 Ill. 2d at 173-74 ; Ogunsola, 87 Ill. 2d at 223 .

2023See People v. Smith, 165 Ill.

1988Cf. People v. Smith (1988), 165 Ill.

2019Id. at 1175-76, 1178-80 .

2018Id. at 1175-76 , 279 Ill.Dec. 96 , 799 N.E.2d 899 ; 1178.

2024The supreme court has explained that under this strict test, “the erroneous omission of a jury instruction rises to the level of plain error only when the omission creates a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.” Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d at 8 ; cf. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 155 (1977) (finding no constitutional violation resulted from an omitted instruction when the defendant’s “claim of prejudice [wa]s based on the failure to give any explanation beyond the rea

2024A trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on an element of the offense sua sponte warrants reversal when it “ ‘remove[s] from the jury’s consideration a disputed issue essential to the determination of [the] defendant’s guilt or innocence.’ ” Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d at 8 (quoting People v. Ogunsola, 87 Ill. 2d 216, 223 (1981)); see People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53, 65 (2008) (“The task of a reviewing court is to determine whether - 17 - the instructions, considered together, fully and fairly announce the law applicable to the theories of the State and the defense.”). ¶ 59 In conducting this inquiry

2024People v. Jones, 81 Ill. 2d 1, 10 (1979) (instructional error on intent harmless where the defendant’s intent to kill was “blatantly evident”); People v. Carter, 405 Ill.

2024People v. Jones, 81 Ill. 2d 1, 10 (1979) (instructional error on intent harmless where the defendant’s intent to kill was “blatantly evident”); People v. Carter, 405 Ill.

2021That analysis does not change because Shontrell’s pretrial statements admitted under section 115- 10 are part of that trial evidence, as this jury received the same witness credibility instruction, IPI Criminal No. 1.02, as in Sargent. “[W]e may consider the hearsay outcry statements on the prosecution’s side of the scale as we determine whether the evidence was closely balanced for purposes of plain error review and whether the omitted instruction was the error that tipped the scales of justice against defendant, in light of the fact that a similar, though not identical, instruction was given

2016See Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶¶ 75-76 , 987 N.E.2d 355 (Kilbride, C.J., dissenting upon denial of rehearing) (trial court's exercise of its discretion cannot be reviewed adequately when several of the forum non conveniens factors are not included in the analysis, and a remand to the trial court for express findings on the omitted factors would be appropriate and consistent with the supreme court's reminder to include all factors in the analysis); see also Wilder Chiropractic, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2014 IL App (2d) 130781, ¶ 47 , 13 N.E.3d 194 ; Pendergast v. Meade Electric Co

2016See Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶¶ 75-76 , 987 N.E.2d 355 (Kilbride, C.J., dissenting upon denial of rehearing) (trial court's exercise of its discretion cannot be reviewed adequately when several of the forum non conveniens factors are not included in the analysis, and a remand to the trial court for express findings on the omitted factors would be appropriate and consistent with the supreme court's reminder to include all factors in the analysis); see also Wilder Chiropractic, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2014 IL App (2d) 130781, ¶ 47 , 13 N.E.3d 194 ; Pendergast v. Meade Electric Co

2016See Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶¶ 75-76 , 987 N.E.2d 355 (Kilbride, C.J., dissenting upon denial of rehearing) (trial court's exercise of its discretion cannot be reviewed adequately when several of the forum non conveniens factors are not included in the analysis, and a remand to the trial court for express findings on the omitted factors would be appropriate and consistent with the supreme court's reminder to include all factors in the analysis); see also Wilder Chiropractic, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2014 IL App (2d) 130781, ¶ 47 , 13 N.E.3d 194 ; Pendergast v. Meade Electric Co

2015See Wells, 110 Ill.

2003See Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d at 369 .

1976App. 3d 1, 14 (2d Dist. 1974); People v. Springs, 51 Ill. 2d 418, 425 (1972)).

1976We hold that when those instructions are given, it is not a substantial defect to fail to also give 25.02, “Issues in Defense of ° ” 0 Drugged Condition.” Therefore the court did not err in failing to give IPI 25.02, as the court is under no duty to give instructions not requested by counsel when the omitted instruction is not a fundamental instruction which must be given in all cases (People v. Doss, 26 Ill.