giving of a jury instruction in Illinois

2026In Washington, this court stated, “[t]he question of whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 (citing Everette, 141 Ill. 2d at 157 ). 1 1 The special concurrence quotes Carter v. Winter, 32 Ill. 2d 275, 281 (1965), for the proposition that “[w]hen the circuit court decides whether the evidence warrants submission of the case to the jury, it decides ‘a question of law.’ ” Infra ¶ 99.

2026“The question of whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 (citing Everette, 141 Ill. 2d at 157 ); see People v. Lockett, 82 Ill. 2d 546, 552-53 (1980).

2026The supreme court has held that, “when the trial court, after reviewing all the evidence, determines that there is insufficient evidence -9- 2026 IL App (2d) 240721-U to justify the giving of a jury instruction, the proper standard of review of that decision is abuse of discretion.” People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882, ¶ 42 .

2026See McDonald, 2016 IL 118882, ¶¶ 26-42 (resolving parties’ dispute concerning the standard of review applicable to the question of whether the trial court erred in finding insufficient evidence to justify the giving of a jury instruction).

2026See also Taylor, 2023 IL App (4th) 220381, ¶ 57 (recognizing that under McDonald, “when a trial court has determined there is insufficient evidence to support giving a certain jury instruction, that decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion”); People v. Boston, 2016 IL App (1st) 133497, ¶ 36 (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the question of whether the trial court erred in failing to provide a necessity defense instruction to the jury).

2016See People v. Boston, 2016 IL App (1st) 133497, ¶¶ 34-36 . ¶ 14 Our supreme court repeated the Everette standard in People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 .

2015"While the giving of jury instructions is generally within the discretion of the trial court, we review de novo the question of whether the jury instructions accurately conveyed to the jury the applicable law." People v. Ingram, 382 Ill.

2015"While the giving of jury instructions is generally within the discretion of the trial court, we review de novo the question of whether the jury instructions accurately conveyed to the jury the applicable law." People v. Ingram, 382 Ill.

2018Defendant cites People v. Washington , 2012 IL 110283 , ¶ 19, 357 Ill.Dec. 1 , 962 N.E.2d 902 , to contend that the determination of whether sufficient evidence exists to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.

2015See, e.g., People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 , 962 N.E.2d 902 ("The question of whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.").

2024People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882, ¶ 42 . ¶ 15 “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is some foundation for the instruction in the evidence, and if there is such evidence, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to so instruct the jury.” People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126 , 131- 32 (1997).

2016By contrast, the State argues that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion under People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 131-32 (1997) (“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is some foundation for the instruction in the evidence, and if there is such evidence, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to so instruct the jury.”), and People v. Garcia, 188 Ill. 2d 265, 283 (1999) (“ ‘abuse of discretion’ standard of review must be applied in determining the propriety of the trial court’s [decision to submit a lesser included offense

2018Accordingly, we review this issue for an abuse of discretion. ¶ 84 "The offenses of involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder require different mental states, such that involuntary manslaughter requires a less culpable mental state than first degree murder." People v. Jones , 219 Ill. 2d 1 , 31, 300 Ill.Dec. 709 , 845 N.E.2d 598 (2006).

2016See Jones, 219 Ill. 2d at 31 (“[t]he giving of jury instructions is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court”); People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 (“whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review”).

2005App. 3d at 320 , 547 N.E.2d at 723 (" '[s]ome evidence' *** from either an expert or a lay person warrants the giving of a jury instruction"); Ross v. Aryan International, Inc. , 219 Ill.

2005App. 3d at 320 , 547 N.E.2d at 723 (“ ‘[s]ome evidence’ *** from either an expert or a lay person warrants the giving of a jury instruction”); Ross v. Aryan International, Inc., 219 Ill.

2021In order to instruct the jury on self-defense, the defendant must establish some evidence of each of the following elements: “ ‘(1) force is threatened against a person; (2) the person threatened is not the aggressor; (3) the danger of harm was imminent; (4) the threatened force was unlawful; (5) he actually and subjectively believed a danger existed which required the use of the force applied; and (6) his beliefs were objectively reasonable.’ ” Lewis, 2015 IL App (1st) 122411, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Jeffries, 164 Ill. 2d 104, 127-28 (1995)). - 10 - No. 1-19-1089 “[W]hen the trial court, afte

2020People v. Jeffries, 164 Ill. 2d 104, 127-28 (1995). ¶ 22 Here, the defendant provided some evidence to support each of the elements.

2017However, this [s]ection is inapplicable if the person was pre-disposed to commit the offense and the public officer or employee, or agent of either, merely affords to that person the opportunity or facility for committing an offense.” ¶ 31 “A precondition to raising the entrapment defense is that the defendant must admit that a crime was committed and that he or she committed it.” People v. Gillespie, 136 Ill. 2d 496, 501 , 557 N.E.2d 894, 896 (1990).

2017However, this [s]ection is inapplicable if the person was pre-disposed to commit the offense and the public officer or employee, or agent of either, merely affords to that person the opportunity or facility for committing an offense.” ¶ 31 “A precondition to raising the entrapment defense is that the defendant must admit that a crime was committed and that he or she committed it.” People v. Gillespie, 136 Ill. 2d 496, 501 , 557 N.E.2d 894, 896 (1990).

2016By contrast, the State argues that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion under People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 131-32 (1997) (“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is some foundation for the instruction in the evidence, and if there is such evidence, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to so instruct the jury.”), and People v. Garcia, 188 Ill. 2d 265, 283 (1999) (“ ‘abuse of discretion’ standard of review must be applied in determining the propriety of the trial court’s [decision to submit a lesser included offense

2016By contrast, the State argues that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion under People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 131-32 (1997) (“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is some foundation for the instruction in the evidence, and if there is such evidence, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to so instruct the jury.”), and People v. Garcia, 188 Ill. 2d 265, 283 (1999) (“ ‘abuse of discretion’ standard of review must be applied in determining the propriety of the trial court’s [decision to submit a lesser included offense

2005App. 3d at 320 , 547 N.E.2d at 723 (" '[s]ome evidence' *** from either an expert or a lay person warrants the giving of a jury instruction"); Ross v. Aryan International, Inc. , 219 Ill.

2005App. 3d at 320 , 547 N.E.2d at 723 (“ ‘[s]ome evidence’ *** from either an expert or a lay person warrants the giving of a jury instruction”); Ross v. Aryan International, Inc., 219 Ill.

2000See Aguinaga v. City of Chicago, 243 Ill.

2000See Aguinaga v. City of Chicago, 243 Ill.

2026In Washington, this court stated, “[t]he question of whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 (citing Everette, 141 Ill. 2d at 157 ). 1 1 The special concurrence quotes Carter v. Winter, 32 Ill. 2d 275, 281 (1965), for the proposition that “[w]hen the circuit court decides whether the evidence warrants submission of the case to the jury, it decides ‘a question of law.’ ” Infra ¶ 99.

2026“The question of whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 (citing Everette, 141 Ill. 2d at 157 ); see People v. Lockett, 82 Ill. 2d 546, 552-53 (1980).

2026“The question of whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 (citing Everette, 141 Ill. 2d at 157 ); see People v. Lockett, 82 Ill. 2d 546, 552-53 (1980).

2026See also Taylor, 2023 IL App (4th) 220381, ¶ 57 (recognizing that under McDonald, “when a trial court has determined there is insufficient evidence to support giving a certain jury instruction, that decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion”); People v. Boston, 2016 IL App (1st) 133497, ¶ 36 (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the question of whether the trial court erred in failing to provide a necessity defense instruction to the jury).

2026In Washington, this court stated, “[t]he question of whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the giving of a jury instruction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 19 (citing Everette, 141 Ill. 2d at 157 ). 1 1 The special concurrence quotes Carter v. Winter, 32 Ill. 2d 275, 281 (1965), for the proposition that “[w]hen the circuit court decides whether the evidence warrants submission of the case to the jury, it decides ‘a question of law.’ ” Infra ¶ 99.

2026Reliance on Carter here is misplaced because the issue in Carter was “the propriety of the ruling of the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion for a directed verdict.” Carter, 32 Ill. 2d at 281 .

2025People v. Lee, 213 Ill. 2d 218, 224-25 (2004).

2025See Woods, 2023 IL 127794, ¶ 55 .

2025Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 543 (2007).