benefit of any defense in Illinois

1983The supreme court has repeatedly held that “[a] defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which such defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony” (People v. Scalisi (1926), 324 Ill. 131, 145 , 154 N.E. 715 ; People v. Papas (1942), 381 Ill. 90, 96 , 44 N.E.2d 896 ; People v. Izzo (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 203, 211 , 151 N.E.2d 329 ) and that “very slight evidence upon a given theory of a case will justify the giving of an instruction.” (People v. Khamis (1951), 411 Ill. 46, 53 , 103 N.E.2d 133 ; People v. Kalpak (19

1983The supreme court has repeatedly held that “[a] defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which such defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony” (People v. Scalisi (1926), 324 Ill. 131, 145 , 154 N.E. 715 ; People v. Papas (1942), 381 Ill. 90, 96 , 44 N.E.2d 896 ; People v. Izzo (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 203, 211 , 151 N.E.2d 329 ) and that “very slight evidence upon a given theory of a case will justify the giving of an instruction.” (People v. Khamis (1951), 411 Ill. 46, 53 , 103 N.E.2d 133 ; People v. Kalpak (19

1990While some cases hold that a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which such defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony (People v. Izzo (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 203 , 151 N.E.2d 329 ), and that very slight evidence upon a given theory of a case will justify the giving of an instruction (People v. Kalpak (1957), 10 Ill. 2d 411 , 140 N.E.2d 726 ), the evidence presented in this case is insufficient to meet that minimal level.

1990While some cases hold that a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which such defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony (People v. Izzo (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 203 , 151 N.E.2d 329 ), and that very slight evidence upon a given theory of a case will justify the giving of an instruction (People v. Kalpak (1957), 10 Ill. 2d 411 , 140 N.E.2d 726 ), the evidence presented in this case is insufficient to meet that minimal level.

2003In assessing the merit of a claim of self-defense, "a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which the defense is based are inconsistent with a defendant's own testimony." (Emphasis original.) Lyda, 190 Ill.App.3d at 544 , 137 Ill.Dec. 405 , 546 N.E.2d 29 , citing People v. Janik, 127 Ill.2d 390, 398 , 130 Ill.Dec. 427 , 537 N.E.2d 756 (1989).

2003In assessing the merit of a claim of self-defense, “a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which the defense is based are inconsistent with a defendant’s own testimony.” (Emphasis in original.) Lyda, 190 Ill.

2003The defendant is similarly entitled to present his theory of innocence "even if the trial court believes that the evidence offered in support of that defense is inconsistent or of doubtful credibility." Lyda, 190 Ill.App.3d at 545 , 137 Ill.Dec. 405 , 546 N.E.2d 29 , citing People v. Rodriguez, 96 Ill.App.3d 431, 436 , 51 Ill.Dec. 815 , 421 N.E.2d 323 (1981).

2003The defendant is similarly entitled to present his theory of innocence "even if the trial court believes that the evidence offered in support of that defense is inconsistent or of doubtful credibility." Lyda, 190 Ill.App.3d at 545 , 137 Ill.Dec. 405 , 546 N.E.2d 29 , citing People v. Rodriguez, 96 Ill.App.3d 431, 436 , 51 Ill.Dec. 815 , 421 N.E.2d 323 (1981).

1991(People v. Fryman (1954), 4 Ill. 2d 224 , 122 N.E.2d 573 .) “This is true even if the facts on which the defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony, since the defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence.” (People v. Robinson (1987), 163 Ill.

1990App. 3d 754, 777 , 516 N.E.2d 1292, 1298 .) However, while a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the evidence, there is a minimum standard to be met before instructions are required.

2018In re Adoption of K.B.D. , 2012 IL App (1st) 121558 , ¶ 207, 367 Ill.Dec. 722 , 982 N.E.2d 872 .

2018In re Adoption of K.B.D. , 2012 IL App (1st) 121558 , ¶ 207, 367 Ill.Dec. 722 , 982 N.E.2d 872 .

1995I find persuasive the argument espoused by the United States Supreme Court, and the lower Federal courts, that a defendant should be allowed to deny the commission of the charged offense but nevertheless raise the defense of entrapment. ( Mathews v. United States (1988), 485 U.S. 58 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 .) This court has repeatedly recognized that Illinois law allows a criminal defendant to raise inconsistent defenses. ( People v. Whiters (1992), 146 Ill.2d 437 , 167 Ill.Dec. 1042 , 588 N.E.2d 1172 (where there is evidentiary support for an involuntary manslaughter instruction, such

1995I find persuasive the argument espoused by the United States Supreme Court, and the lower Federal courts, that a defendant should be allowed to deny the commission of the charged offense but nevertheless raise the defense of entrapment. ( Mathews v. United States (1988), 485 U.S. 58 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 .) This court has repeatedly recognized that Illinois law allows a criminal defendant to raise inconsistent defenses. ( People v. Whiters (1992), 146 Ill.2d 437 , 167 Ill.Dec. 1042 , 588 N.E.2d 1172 (where there is evidentiary support for an involuntary manslaughter instruction, such

1989People v. Veatch (1986), 145 Ill.

1989(Janik, 127 Ill. 2d at 398 ; People v. Bratcher (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 534, 540 ; People v. Veatch (1986), 145 Ill.

1975(People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 306 ; People v. Taylor (1967), 36 Ill.2d 483, 489 ; People v. Latimer (1966), 35 Ill.2d 178, 182 .) A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence; and the court does not weigh the evidence in malting the determination.

1975(People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 306 ; People v. Taylor (1967), 36 Ill.2d 483, 489 ; People v. Latimer (1966), 35 Ill.2d 178, 182 .) A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence; and the court does not weigh the evidence in making the determination.

1975(People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 306 ; People v. Taylor (1967), 36 Ill.2d 483, 489 ; People v. Latimer (1966), 35 Ill.2d 178, 182 .) A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence; and the court does not weigh the evidence in malting the determination.

1975(People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 306 ; People v. Taylor (1967), 36 Ill.2d 483, 489 ; People v. Latimer (1966), 35 Ill.2d 178, 182 .) A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence; and the court does not weigh the evidence in making the determination.

1975(People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 306 ; People v. Taylor (1967), 36 Ill.2d 483, 489 ; People v. Latimer (1966), 35 Ill.2d 178, 182 .) A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence; and the court does not weigh the evidence in malting the determination.

1975(People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 306 ; People v. Taylor (1967), 36 Ill.2d 483, 489 ; People v. Latimer (1966), 35 Ill.2d 178, 182 .) A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence; and the court does not weigh the evidence in making the determination.

1969(People v. Cash, 326 Ill 104 [ 157 NE 76 (1927)]; People v. Scalisi, 324 Ill 131 [ 154 NE 715 (1926)].) The primary defense of the defendant Fryman, in this case, was consent of the prosecutrix.

1954(People v. Cash, 326 Ill. 104 ; People v. Scalisi, 324 Ill. 131 .) The primary defense of the defendant Fryman, in this case, was consent of the prosecutrix.

2024App. 3d at 764 ; Bratcher, 63 Ill. 2d at 540 (“[T]his court has repeatedly held that ‘[a] defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which such defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony’ [citations] ***.”). ¶ 37 After reviewing the trial record in the present case, which consists only of the State’s evidence, we find that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that defendant’s action of wrapping his arm around Taylor’s neck was either the result of frustration (Wicks, 355 Ill.

1999“In general, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the. defense of necessity when evidence, sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt, has been introduced that the accused, without blame in occasioning or developing the situation, reasonably believed his conduct, which would otherwise be an offense, was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might have resulted from his own conduct.” People v. Ferree, 221 Ill.

1996People v. Bratcher, 63 Ill. 2d 534, 540 , 349 N.E.2d 31, 34 (1976); People v. Brown, 214 Ill.

1995I find persuasive the argument espoused by the United States Supreme Court, and the lower Federal courts, that a defendant should be allowed to deny the commission of the charged offense but nevertheless raise the defense of entrapment. ( Mathews v. United States (1988), 485 U.S. 58 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 .) This court has repeatedly recognized that Illinois law allows a criminal defendant to raise inconsistent defenses. ( People v. Whiters (1992), 146 Ill.2d 437 , 167 Ill.Dec. 1042 , 588 N.E.2d 1172 (where there is evidentiary support for an involuntary manslaughter instruction, such

1995(People v. Whiters (1992), 146 Ill. 2d 437 (where there is evidentiary support for an involuntary manslaughter instruction, such an instruction is not prohibited by a claim of self-defense); People v. Bratcher (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 534, 540 (a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the evidence, even if the facts on which such defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony).) This court’s decision in People v. Everette (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 147 , is particularly instructive in this area.

1993Defendant cites to People v. Fryman (1954), 4 Ill. 2d 224 , 123 N.E.2d 573 , where the court stated: "A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed not only as to the law applicable to the state of facts testified to but applicable to any state of facts which the jury might legitimately find from the evidence to have been proved, and a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence.” Fryman, 4 Ill. 2d at 231 .

1989(City of Chicago v. Mayer (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 366, 370 .) Furthermore, a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which the defense is based are inconsistent with defendant’s own testimony.

1989(People v. Bratcher (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 534, 540 .) In People v. Larry (1986), 144 Ill.

1987App. 3d 840, 852 , 493 N.E.2d 600, 609 , appeal denied (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 586 .) This is true even if the facts on which the defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony, since the defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence.

1987App. 3d 352 , 395 N.E.2d 1203 . *** A defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the evidence, even if the facts on which such defense is based are inconsistent with the defendant’s own testimony.