error in giving instruction in Illinois

1974In Jones, at page 683, the court stated: “While it might have been better for the court to have instructed more specifically on the elements of the offenses charged, we do not find that the failure of the trial court so to instruct was prejudicial error. ‘Where the instructions, as a whole, inform the jury of the facts which are essential to the proof of the commission of a specific crime, an error in giving an instruction wiH not be considered so prejudicial as to warrant a reversal.’ People v. Hyde (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 831 , 275 N.E.2d 239 .” In Meeks, where it was contended that IPI 25.05 s

1974In Jones, at page 683, the court stated: “While it might have been better for the court to have instructed more specifically on the elements of the offenses charged, we do not find that the failure of the trial court so to instruct was prejudicial error. ‘Where the instructions, as a whole, inform the jury of the facts which are essential to the proof of the commission of a specific crime, an error in giving an instruction wiH not be considered so prejudicial as to warrant a reversal.’ People v. Hyde (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 831 , 275 N.E.2d 239 .” In Meeks, where it was contended that IPI 25.05 s

1987People v. Hicks (1981), 101 Ill.

1982While it might have been better for the court to have instructed more specifically on the elements of the offenses charged, we do not find that the failure of the trial court so to instruct was prejudicial error. ‘Where the instructions, as a whole, inform the jury of the facts which are essential to the proof of the commission of a specific crime, an error in giving an instruction will not be considered so prejudicial as to warrant a reversal.’ [Citation.]” 6 Ill.

1971People v. Knox, 116 Ill.App.2d 427 , 252 N.E.2d 549 .

1971People v. Knox, 116 Ill.App.2d 427 , 252 N.E.2d 549 .

1958We rejected the same contention in People v. Duzan, 272 Ill. 478 , saying that the error in giving such instruction, if any, was harmless, and, in People v. Dean, 321 Ill. 128 , where there was likewise no evidence of secretion, held that no prejudice resulted from instructions in the language of the embezzlement statute.

1958We rejected the same contention in People v. Duzan, 272 Ill. 478 , saying that the error in giving such instruction, if any, was harmless, and, in People v. Dean, 321 Ill. 128 , where there was likewise no evidence of secretion, held that no prejudice resulted from instructions in the language of the embezzlement statute.

1941This instruction was open to criticism (Laughlin v. Hopkinson, 292 Ill. 80 ) but in view of the form of verdict submitted, and the demand for liquidated damages, and the further fact that no punitive damages were awarded by the jury, defendant was not injured and the error in giving this instruction does not constitute ground for reversal.

1920(State v. Buella, 89 Mo. 595 ; State v. Richmond, 186 id. 71.) In People v. Mirabella, 294 Ill. 246 , the error in giving this instruction where counts for larceny and receiving stolen property are joined, without limiting it to the larceny count, is recognized, though the error was disregarded and the judgment affirmed in that case because the evidence in the record was such that the jury could not reasonably return any other verdict than one of guilty.

1920(State v. Buella, 89 Mo. 595 ; State v. Richmond, 186 id. 71.) In People v. Mirabella, 294 Ill. 246 , the error in giving this instruction where counts for larceny and receiving stolen property are joined, without limiting it to the larceny count, is recognized, though the error was disregarded and the judgment affirmed in that case because the evidence in the record was such that the jury could not reasonably return any other verdict than one of guilty.

1897Law,— 7th ed.—sec. 41.) It was therefore competent to make the defense relied upon.” The precise instruction here being reviewed was condemned by this court in Crosby v. People, 137 Ill. 325 , in an indictment for an assault with intent to murder, and the judgment was reversed solely for the error in giving the instruction.