circumstantial evidence instruction in Illinois

1987However, the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Bryant (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 497 , 499 N.E.2d 413 , is controlling on the issue of whether the second paragraph of the circumstantial evidence instruction must be given when the evidence at trial is entirely circumstantial.

1987However, the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Bryant (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 497 , 499 N.E.2d 413 , is controlling on the issue of whether the second paragraph of the circumstantial evidence instruction must be given when the evidence at trial is entirely circumstantial.

1997Lewis, 165 Ill. 2d at 355 , 651 N.E.2d at 95 .

1997Lewis, 165 Ill. 2d at 355 , 651 N.E.2d at 95 .

1976(See my dissenting opinion in People v. Minish, 19 Ill.

1974Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: Consistent with my view as discussed in my dissenting opinion in People v. Minish, 19 Ill.App.3d 603 , filed May 20, 1974, I believe the entire circumstantial evidence instruction should have been given and the failure to do so requires a new trial in this case.

1974It is People v. Gardner, 4 I11.2d 232, 122 N.E. 2d 578 , cited in the committee note to the circumstantial evidence instruction (I.P.I. 3.02, Criminal) for the proposition that where the evidence is all direct evidence an instruction on circumstantial evidence is prejudicially erroneous.

1974It is People v. Gardner, 4 Ill.2d 232 , 122 N.E. 2d 578 , cited in the committee note to the circumstantial evidence instruction (I.P.I. 3.02, Criminal) for the proposition that where the evidence is all direct evidence an instruction on circumstantial evidence is prejudicially erroneous.

1995(See People v. Gosier (1991), 145 Ill. 2d 127, 162 .) Although defendant voiced no objection to Keith’s testimony on the subject of flight at trial, given that flight served as the basis for the instruction, we deem defendant’s objection to the instruction sufficient to preserve both claimed errors for review.

1995(See People v. Gosier (1991), 145 Ill.2d 127, 162 , 163 Ill.Dec. 823 , 582 N.E.2d 89 .) Although defendant voiced no objection to Keith's testimony on the subject of flight at trial, given that flight served as the basis for the instruction, we deem defendant's objection to the instruction sufficient to preserve both claimed errors for review. *93 That said, we nevertheless find no instructional error.

1987App. 3d 1000 , 503 N.E. 2d 1124 , the court determined that the Bryant case should be given retrospective application, reasoning: “[I]f we were to. reverse and remand the instant case for a trial de novo, the second paragraph of the circumstantial evidence instruction (IPI Criminal No. 3.02) would not be given at the new trial in accordance with Bryant.

1987App. 3d 1000, 1002 , 503 N.E. 2d 1124, 1125 .) Accordingly, in view of the principles set forth in Bryant and Jamerson, we conclude that the trial court’s refusal to give the second paragraph of the circumstantial evidence instruction did not constitute reversible error.

1984App. 3d 792 , 420 N.E.2d 482 .) The court erred in not submitting to the jury the second paragraph of the circumstantial evidence instruction.

1984Ed. 2d 776 , 88 S. Ct. 1770 , resulted in the selection of a jury biased in favor of the prosecution; (6) whether defendant was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury because of the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude certain blacks from the jury on the basis of race; (7) whether the State proved defendant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt; (8) whether the State proved defendant guilty of attempted rape beyond a reasonable doubt; (9) whether Dr. Sheldon Rudnick was a qualified expert in bite-mark comparisons; (10) whether permitting the jury to view photograph

1983People v. Evans (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 77, 83 ; People v. Flowers (1982), 111 Ill.

1983People v. Evans (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 77, 83 ; People v. Flowers (1982), 111 Ill.

1980(People v. Sturdyvin (1922), 306 Ill. 138 ; People v. Harris (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 83 .) Although the jury was not instructed on this matter, they were instructed “You should consider all the evidence in light of your own observations and experience in life” (Illinois Pattern Instructions, Criminal, No. 1.01 (1968) (hereinafter IPI)), and they were given the circumstantial evidence instruction (IPI Criminal No. 3.02).

1980(People v. Sturdyvin (1922), 306 Ill. 138 ; People v. Harris (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 83 .) Although the jury was not instructed on this matter, they were instructed “You should consider all the evidence in light of your own observations and experience in life” (Illinois Pattern Instructions, Criminal, No. 1.01 (1968) (hereinafter IPI)), and they were given the circumstantial evidence instruction (IPI Criminal No. 3.02).

1976(Also see People v. Brown (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 312 , 307 N.E:2d 356; People v. Miller (1974), 19 Ill.

1976(People v. Johnson (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 441 , 192 N.E.2d 864 .) We can only conclude that the giving by the trial court of the circumstantial evidence instruction was not error.

1976(People v. Johnson (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 441 , 192 N.E.2d 864 .) We can only conclude that the giving by the trial court of the circumstantial evidence instruction was not error.

1976(Also see People v. Brown (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 312 , 307 N.E:2d 356; People v. Miller (1974), 19 Ill.

1972Branch v. Woulfe, 300 Ill.App. 472 , 21 N.E.2d 148 .

1972Branch v. Woulfe, 300 Ill.App. 472 , 21 N.E.2d 148 .

1972The court gave an instruction which provided: “There was in force in the State of Illinois at the time of the occurrence in question a certain statute which provided that: ‘The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to run to the left shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard, but said driver, having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required by this Act may make such left turn and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the inte

1968(People v. Robinson, 27 Ill.2d 289 ; People v. Allen, 17 Ill.2d 55 .) Actually, the circumstantial evidence instruction given on behalf of the State has previously been approved (People v. Guido, 321 Ill. 397 ), and this is not disputed by defendant.

1968(People v. Robinson, 27 Ill.2d 289 ; People v. Allen, 17 Ill.2d 55 .) Actually, the circumstantial evidence instruction given on behalf of the State has previously been approved (People v. Guido, 321 Ill. 397 ), and this is not disputed by defendant.

1951(People v. Ricili, 400 Ill. 309 .) It is true in the instant case the People gave a circumstantial evidence instruction which told the jury in a few words that circumstantial evidence is legal evidence and must be so considered.