IPI instruction in Illinois

2025See People v. Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d 189, 212 (2002) (“As a general rule, where an appropriate IPI instruction exists on a subject upon which the trial court has determined the jury should be instructed, the IPI must 4 Defendant’s proposed jury instruction also used “his or her,” whereas the trial court used solely “his,” but defendant does not raise this point on appeal. 28 No. 1-23-0772 be used.”).

2025See People v. Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d 189, 212 (2002) (“As a general rule, where an appropriate IPI instruction exists on a subject upon which the trial court has determined the jury should be instructed, the IPI must 4 Defendant’s proposed jury instruction also used “his or her,” whereas the trial court used solely “his,” but defendant does not raise this point on appeal. 28 No. 1-23-0772 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”).

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”).

2002While Supreme Court Rule 451(a) requires a trial court to give an IPI instruction that correctly states the law, a "trial court has discretion to allow non-IPI instructions which cover subjects that it determines the jury should be instructed upon, and tendering such instructions is proper if they are accurate, simple, brief, impartial, nonargumentative statements of the law." People v. Ramey , 151 Ill. 2d 498, 536 , 603 N.E.2d 519 (1992) (citing 134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a)).

2002While Supreme Court Rule 451(a) requires a trial court to give an IPI instruction that correctly states the law, a "trial court has discretion to allow non-IPI instructions which cover subjects that it determines the jury should be instructed upon, and tendering such instructions is proper if they are accurate, simple, brief, impartial, nonargumentative statements of the law." People v. Ramey , 151 Ill. 2d 498, 536 , 603 N.E.2d 519 (1992) (citing 134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a)).

2024We disagree and decline to follow Guy. ¶ 37 “Supreme Court Rule 451(a) requires that in a criminal case, if the court determines the jury should be instructed on a subject, and the Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI), Criminal, contains an applicable instruction, then the IPI instruction ‘shall’ be given unless the court determines it does not accurately state the law.” People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (2004).

2024We disagree and decline to follow Guy. ¶ 37 “Supreme Court Rule 451(a) requires that in a criminal case, if the court determines the jury should be instructed on a subject, and the Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI), Criminal, contains an applicable instruction, then the IPI instruction ‘shall’ be given unless the court determines it does not accurately state the law.” People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (2004).

2021Apr. 8, 2013) requires that, “if the court determines the jury should be instructed on a subject, and the Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI), Criminal, contains an appliable instruction, then the IPI instruction ‘shall’ be given unless the court - 19 - determines it does not accurately state the law.” Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d at 7 (citing People v. Novak, 163 Ill. 2d 93, 116 (1994)).

2021Apr. 8, 2013) requires that, “if the court determines the jury should be instructed on a subject, and the Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI), Criminal, contains an appliable instruction, then the IPI instruction ‘shall’ be given unless the court - 19 - determines it does not accurately state the law.” Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d at 7 (citing People v. Novak, 163 Ill. 2d 93, 116 (1994)).

2018"Whenever an IPI instruction is applicable in a civil case, the trial court, giving due consideration to the facts and the prevailing law, is required to use that instruction." Hobart v. Shin , 185 Ill. 2d 283 , 294, 235 Ill.Dec. 724 , 705 N.E.2d 907 (1998) ; see Ill.

2018"Whenever an IPI instruction is applicable in a civil case, the trial court, giving due consideration to the facts and the prevailing law, is required to use that instruction." Hobart v. Shin , 185 Ill. 2d 283 , 294, 235 Ill.Dec. 724 , 705 N.E.2d 907 (1998) ; see Ill.

2023“Supreme Court Rule 451(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a)) requires a trial court to instruct the jury pursuant to the [Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction] IPI criminal instructions unless the trial court determines that the IPI instruction does not accurately state the law.” People v. Hudson, 222 Ill. 2d 392, 399-400 (2006).

2023“Supreme Court Rule 451(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a)) requires a trial court to instruct the jury pursuant to the [Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction] IPI criminal instructions unless the trial court determines that the IPI instruction does not accurately state the law.” People v. Hudson, 222 Ill. 2d 392, 399-400 (2006).

2026Conversely, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a non-IPI instruction if there is an applicable IPI instruction or the essence of the refused instruction is covered by other given instructions.” People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 412-13 (2000). ¶ 15 Here, in drafting the instructions for DWLR, the committee chose not to define the word “highway,” evidently concluding that reasonable jurors would understand its meaning and be able to apply it in the vast majority of cases without an instruction.

2026Conversely, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a non-IPI instruction if there is an applicable IPI instruction or the essence of the refused instruction is covered by other given instructions.” People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 412-13 (2000). ¶ 15 Here, in drafting the instructions for DWLR, the committee chose not to define the word “highway,” evidently concluding that reasonable jurors would understand its meaning and be able to apply it in the vast majority of cases without an instruction.

2025Bush, 157 Ill. 2d at 257 . ¶ 32 However, the language in Bush must be tempered with Rule 451(a) which graces the trial court with discretion to provide a non-IPI instruction which covers subjects that it determines necessary.

2025Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points not argued are forfeited ***.”). 9 ¶ 30 Therefore, we limit our analysis to whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving a non-IPI instruction to the jury. “ ‘ “An abuse of discretion will be found only where the court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” ’ ” People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44, 106 (2011) (quoting People v. Patrick, 233 Ill. 2d 62, 68 (2009), quoting People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 20 (2000)). ¶ 31 It is well established that the Illinois Supreme Court does not

2005People v. Tsombanidis , 235 Ill.

2005Tsombanidis , 235 Ill.

2025“An abuse of discretion in the refusal of a non-IPI instruction occurs only where there is no IPI instruction that applies to the subject on which the jury should have been instructed.” People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill. 2d 484, 519 (1996).

2025Thus, “a trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a non-IPI instruction if there is an applicable IPI instruction or the essence of the refused instruction is covered by other given instructions.” Id. ¶ 40 Here, the trial court instructed on IPI No. 5.03, which informed the jury that “A person is legally responsible for the conduct of another person when, either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense, he knowingly solicits, aids, abets, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in th

2025See People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008) (A non-IPI must be “an accurate, simple, brief, impartial, and nonargumentative statement of the law.”). ¶ 23 Still, “[t]he function of jury instructions is to provide the jury with accurate legal principles to apply to the evidence so it can reach a correct conclusion.” Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 51 .

2024Id.; People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008); see People v. Ortiz, 2017 IL App (1st) 142559, ¶ 50 (non-IPI instruction should be used if IPI instruction is inaccurate).

2024People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53, 65 (2008). ¶ 46 The first instruction at issue addresses a modified IPI instruction on resisting arrest.

2023It further argues that the public official misconduct statute and public contractor misconduct statute are substantially similar such that modifying the IPI instruction for public official misconduct was appropriate. ¶ 81 Jury instructions serve the important purpose of “convey[ing] the legal rules applicable to the evidence presented at trial and thus guide the jury’s deliberations toward a proper verdict.” People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53, 65 (2008).

2025Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182, ¶ 14 ; Ill.

2025Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182, ¶ 14 ; Ill.

2025There, we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to - 15 - No. 1-23-0037 give a non-IPI “mere presence” instruction in addition to the IPI instruction on accountability. 2 Id. at 632-35 .

2025There, we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to - 15 - No. 1-23-0037 give a non-IPI “mere presence” instruction in addition to the IPI instruction on accountability. 2 Id. at 632-35 .

2000App. 3d 670, 697-98 , 628 N.E.2d 472 (1993) (rejecting defendant's non-IPI instruction on mere presence since the jury was adequately instructed on defendant's theory of the case and because the standard IPI accountability instruction contains the essence of the "mere presence instruction"); see also Thomas , 175 Ill.

2000App. 3d 670, 697-98 , 628 N.E.2d 472 (1993) (rejecting defendant’s non-IPI instruction on mere presence since the jury was adequately instructed on defendant’s theory of the case and because the standard IPI accountability instruction contains the essence of the “mere presence” instruction); see also Thomas, 175 Ill.

2025A trial court has the discretion to give a non-IPI instruction in a criminal case provided that instruction is “accurate, - 13 - No. 1-23-0037 simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument.” People v. Ortiz, 2017 IL App (1st) 142559, ¶ 50 .

2025“An abuse of discretion in the refusal of a non-IPI occurs only where there is no IPI instruction applicable to the subject on which the jury should have been instructed and the jury was, therefore, left to deliberate without proper instructions.” Id. (citing People v. Garcia, 165 Ill. 2d 409, 432-34 (1995)). ¶ 110 A trial court should give IPI Criminal No. 3.15 “when identification is an issue,” as it was in this case.

1981“There are situations where the IPI instruction is inadequate and an additional instruction is appropriate.” Balestri v. Terminal Freight Co-op Association (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 451 , 394 N.E.2d 391, 393 ; accord, Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Association of Franciscan Fathers (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 308 , 371 N.E.2d 616 ; Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc. Given that IPI instructions are sometimes inadequate, was IPI Civil No. 30.03 (2d ed. 1971) legally insufficient under the facts of the instant case?

1981“There are situations where the IPI instruction is inadequate and an additional instruction is appropriate.” Balestri v. Terminal Freight Co-op Association (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 451 , 394 N.E.2d 391, 393 ; accord, Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Association of Franciscan Fathers (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 308 , 371 N.E.2d 616 ; Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc. Given that IPI instructions are sometimes inadequate, was IPI Civil No. 30.03 (2d ed. 1971) legally insufficient under the facts of the instant case?

2025Id. ¶ 28 Here, defendant argues that the non-IPI instruction “was not an accurate and impartial statement of the law” and further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in giving the instruction.

2025Id. ¶ 28 Here, defendant argues that the non-IPI instruction “was not an accurate and impartial statement of the law” and further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in giving the instruction.

1996App. 3d 855, 857-58 , 417 N.E. 2d 1099, 1101 (1981) (stating that the amplification or clarification of IPI instructions may be permitted in limited circumstances where the IPI instruction is inadequate and an additional instruction is appropriate).

1996App. 3d 855, 857-58 , 417 N.E. 2d 1099, 1101 (1981) (stating that the amplification or clarification of IPI instructions may be permitted in limited circumstances where the IPI instruction is inadequate and an additional instruction is appropriate).

2024(Emphasis in original.) Id. (citing Dillon, 199 Ill. 2d at 507 ). ¶ 58 However, when an applicable Illinois Pattern Instruction (IPI) does not exist or does not accurately state the law, the trial court may instruct the jury with an impartial non-IPI instruction.

2014Jan. 1, 1999) requires that “[w]henever Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (IPI), Civil, contains an instruction applicable in a civil case, giving due consideration to the facts and the prevailing law, and the court determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, the IPI instruction shall be used, unless the court determines that it does not accurately state the law.” A trial court does not abuse its discretion regarding jury instructions if the instructions in their entirety “fairly, fully, and comprehensively apprise[ ] the jury of the relevant legal principles.” Schultz, 201

1976In Joyner the defendant was charged with murder and the court therein observed that “this was a close case factually” and that: “Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants’ failure to tender the appropriate IPI instruction was not as important with reference to the fundamental fairness of their trial as the requirement that the jury be fully and properly instructed.” 50 Ill. 2d 302, 307 , 278 N.E.2d 756, 759 .

1976In Joyner the defendant was charged with murder and the court therein observed that “this was a close case factually” and that: “Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants’ failure to tender the appropriate IPI instruction was not as important with reference to the fundamental fairness of their trial as the requirement that the jury be fully and properly instructed.” 50 Ill. 2d 302, 307 , 278 N.E.2d 756, 759 .

1986App. 3d 129 , 402 N.E.2d 732 ), the decision to give a tendered non-IPI instruction is always within the discretion of the trial court (People v. Jones (1986), 145 Ill.

1983App. 3d. 129, 402 N.E.2d 732 .) A non-Pattern credibility instruction may be properly refused by the trial court where an IPI instruction is given which adequately addresses the same issue.