determines claim in Illinois

2025“If the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion.” Id. (citing Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 77-78 ).

2025“If the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion.” Id. (citing Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 77-78 ).

2024Plaintiffs assert that the second sentence “can never be given without sentence one, because sentence two is peremptory.” They argue that the first sentence should be given where there is evidence of more than one proximate cause of the injury at issue. ¶ 49 A trial court is required to use an Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction when it is applicable in a civil case after giving due consideration to the facts and the prevailing law, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law Id. at 273 .

2020In fact, “[a] trial court is required to use an Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction when it is applicable in a civil case after giving due consideration to the facts and the prevailing law, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 273 .

2001To insure the use of such instructions, this court adopted Rule 451(a), which requires that an instruction in IPI he given where applicable, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law. ***’ People v. Haywood, 82 Ill. 2d 540, 545 [, 413 N.E.2d 410, 413 ] (1980).” (Emphasis added.) See also People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 234 (2000), (“Where the court determines that the jury should be instructed on a particular subject and an appropriate IPI instruction exists, it will be used”).

2001To insure the use of such instructions, this court adopted Rule 451(a), which requires that an instruction in IPI he given where applicable, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law. ***’ People v. Haywood, 82 Ill. 2d 540, 545 [, 413 N.E.2d 410, 413 ] (1980).” (Emphasis added.) See also People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 234 (2000), (“Where the court determines that the jury should be instructed on a particular subject and an appropriate IPI instruction exists, it will be used”).

2006A trial court is required to use an Illinois pattern jury instruction when it is applicable in a civil case after giving due consideration to the facts and prevailing law, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law. 177 Ill.2d R. 239(a); Hobart v. Shin, 185 Ill.2d 283, 294 , 235 Ill.Dec. 724 , 705 N.E.2d 907 (1998).

2006A trial court is required to use an Illinois pattern jury instruction when it is applicable in a civil case after giving due consideration to the facts and prevailing law, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law. 177 Ill. 2d R. 239(a); Hobart v. Shin, 185 Ill. 2d 283, 294 (1998).

2024“If the court determines the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, new counsel need not be appointed and the pro se motion may be denied.” People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 68, 75 (2010).

2019“If the court determines the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, new counsel need not be appointed and the pro se motion may be denied.” People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 68, 75 , 927 N.E.2d 1172, 1175-76 (2010).

2026Likewise, there was no error in allowing the recording into evidence at trial over defense counsel’s identical objection. ¶ 33 Gabrys’s third argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred when it refused to issue a modified instruction on the elements of harassment by telephone based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman. ¶ 34 “If IPI instructions contain an applicable instruction on a subject about which the trial court determines the jury should be instructed, the trial court must use that instruction, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accur

2023People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (1994) (“In fact, counsel’s strategic choices are virtually unchallengeable.”). ¶ 56 With respect to jury instructions, if there is an applicable pattern instruction on a subject about which the trial court determines the jury should be instructed, “the trial court must use that instruction, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008) (citing Ill.

2026“If the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion.” Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 35 .

2026However, “[i]f the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may -5- deny the pro se motion.” People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 35 .

2008“Once a trial court determines an instruction is to be given, then Supreme Court Rule 239(a) (177 Ill. 2d R. 239(a)) creates a presumption that the Illinois Pattern Instructions (IPI) are to be used. [Citation.] Rule 239(a) requires a trial court to use the IPI when it contains an instruction applicable in a civil case and the court determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, unless the court determines that the IPI does not accurately state the law. [Citations.]” Luye v. Schopper, 348 Ill.

2008“Once a trial court determines an instruction is to be given, then Supreme Court Rule 239(a) (177 Ill. 2d R. 239(a)) creates a presumption that the Illinois Pattern Instructions (IPI) are to be used.” Luye, 348 Ill.

2008Luke's Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147, 204 (2006).

2008Luke’s Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147, 204 (2006).

1997See Bubb, 167 Ill.2d at 379, 381 , 212 Ill.Dec. 542 , 657 N.E.2d 887 (agreeing with the reasoning of courts that examine "the nature of the property as a whole").

1997See Bubb, 167 Ill. 2d at 379, 381 (agreeing with the reasoning of courts that examine "the nature of the property as a whole”).

2025However, if the allegations show possible neglect of the case, new counsel should be appointed.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 (quoting People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 78 (2003)).

2024Appointed counsel can independently evaluate the -5- 2024 IL App (2d) 230225-U claim and avoid the conflict of interest that trial counsel would have in trying to justify his or her own actions contrary to the defendant’s position. [Citation.]” The Krankel procedure “encourages the trial court to exercise its fact-finding abilities and ‘create the necessary record for any claims raised on appeal.’ ” People v. Downing, 2019 IL App (1st) 170329, ¶ 37 (quoting People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 38 ). ¶ 13 The Fourth District has explained the factors a reviewing court should consider in determini

2025App. 3d 326, 339 (2005) (recognizing that the trial court was not in a position to evaluate the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance for failure to subpoena witnesses simply by relying on facts within its knowledge where the record did not reveal who the witnesses were or what they would have said on the stand); People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943, ¶ 53 (remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to make a more complete inquiry into defense counsel’s efforts “to investigate” the witness and “secure his testimony for the second trial,” was needed); People

2024App. 3d 326, 339 (2005) (recognizing that the trial court was not in a position to evaluate the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance for failure to subpoena witnesses simply by relying on facts within its knowledge where the record did not reveal who 19 1-22-1136 the witnesses were or what they would have said on the stand); People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943 (remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to make a more complete inquiry into defense counsel’s efforts “to investigate” the witness and “secure his testimony for the second trial,” was needed);

2024Appointed counsel can independently evaluate the -5- 2024 IL App (2d) 230225-U claim and avoid the conflict of interest that trial counsel would have in trying to justify his or her own actions contrary to the defendant’s position. [Citation.]” The Krankel procedure “encourages the trial court to exercise its fact-finding abilities and ‘create the necessary record for any claims raised on appeal.’ ” People v. Downing, 2019 IL App (1st) 170329, ¶ 37 (quoting People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 38 ). ¶ 13 The Fourth District has explained the factors a reviewing court should consider in determini

2024App. 3d 326, 339 (2005) (recognizing that the trial court was not in a position to evaluate the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance for failure to subpoena witnesses simply by relying on facts within its knowledge where the record did not reveal who 19 1-22-1136 the witnesses were or what they would have said on the stand); People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943 (remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to make a more complete inquiry into defense counsel’s efforts “to investigate” the witness and “secure his testimony for the second trial,” was needed);

2023People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (1994) (“In fact, counsel’s strategic choices are virtually unchallengeable.”). ¶ 56 With respect to jury instructions, if there is an applicable pattern instruction on a subject about which the trial court determines the jury should be instructed, “the trial court must use that instruction, unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008) (citing Ill.

2023App. 3d 326, 339 , 833 N.E.2d 396, 407 (2005). ¶ 23 “If the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion.” People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 35 , 161 N.E.3d 173 .

2023See People v. Cole, 2016 IL App (1st) 141664, ¶ 35 (a court will not lose jurisdiction because it makes a mistake in determining either the facts, the law or both).