jury a non-IPI instruction (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

jury a non-IPI instruction in Illinois

10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Kimbroughgreen
illappct · 1985 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002It is for you to determine whether the defendant was involved in that conduct, and if so, what weight should be given to this forthcoming evidence on the issue of modus operandi.” Defendant also requested that the trial court give the jury a non-IPI instruction tendered by defense counsel which defined modus operandi based on the definition set forth in Black’s Law Dictionary 1020 (7th ed. 1999) and People v. Kimbrough, 138 Ill.

2002Nevertheless, we will address those claims of error that may arise upon remand. 1 Jury Instruction Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury a non-IPI instruction tendered by the defense which defined modus operandi as it was previously defined by the appellate court in Kimbrough, 138 Ill.

22
Fornoff v. Parke Davis & Co.green
illappct · 1982 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983
1 sentence

1983See Fornoff v. Parke Davis & Co. (1982), 105 Ill.

11
People v. Larsongreen
illappct · 1980 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
1 sentence

1982See People v. Larson (1980), 82 Ill.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Eid v. Loyola University Medical Center green
illappct · 2017
2 sentences

2019Eid v. Loyola University Medical Center, 2017 IL App (1st) 143967 , ¶ 56.

2018Eid v. Loyola University Medical Center , 2017 IL App (1st) 143967 , ¶ 56, 411 Ill.Dec. 163 , 72 N.E.3d 851 .

22018–2019
Trimble v. Olympic Tavern, Inc. green
illappct · 1993
1 sentence

1999Trimble v. Olympic Tavern, Inc., 239 Ill.

11999–1999
People v. Peeples green
ill · 1993
1 sentence

1993However, while, as we recently discussed in People v. Peeples (1993), 155 Ill. 2d 422 , the limited-authority doctrine is applicable to private residences, we find that here the trial court abused its discretion by submitting to the jury a non-IPI instruction which misstated the doctrine.

11993–1993
People v. Bush neutral
illappct · 1992
1 sentence

1993The appellate court subsequently reversed on the grounds that the trial court had erroneously submitted to the jury a non-IPI instruction concerning the limited-authority doctrine. ( 227 Ill.

11993–1993
People v. Haywood green
ill · 1980
2 sentences

1989Turning to the case at bar, we note many parallels between it and the situation presented in Haywood: (1) there is no dispute that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged crime; however, the degree of his intoxication is in question; (2) the defendant has raised the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication; (3) the trial court gave the jury the approved IPI Instruction defining such defense (IPI Criminal 2d No. 24 — 25.02); and (4) the trial court also gave the jury a non-IPI instruction purporting to define the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication so as to requi

1989Turning to the case at bar, we note many parallels between it and the situation presented in Haywood: (1) there is no dispute that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged crime; however, the degree of his intoxication is in question; (2) the defendant has raised the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication; (3) the trial court gave the jury the approved IPI Instruction defining such defense (IPI Criminal 2d No. 24 — 25.02); and (4) the trial court also gave the jury a non-IPI instruction purporting to define the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication so as to requi

11989–1989
Kent v. Knox Motor Service, Inc. green
illappct · 1981
1 sentence

1983App. 3d 223 , 419 N.E.2d 1253 .) Accordingly, we reject defendant’s contention that a bad-faith instruction was necessary and hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give to the jury a non-IPI instruction on bad faith.

11983–1983
People v. Dordies green
illappct · 1978
1 sentence

1979The instruction, numbered 7.01, was offered by the State and read as follows: “You are instructed that where a person inflicts upon another an injury which is dangerous, that is calculated to endanger or destroy life, it is no defense to a charge of murder or manslaughter: That the acts of the defendant were not the sole and immediate cause of déath of the victim, or That the victim did not die immediately.” Defendant correctly asserts that the language of the foregoing instruction is quite similar to that criticized in People v. Dordies (1978), 60 Ill.

11979–1979

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check