error in a jury instruction in Illinois

2024“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given.” People v. Ward, 187 Ill. 2d 249, 265 (1999) (citing People v. Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 (1991)).

2023“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given.” People v. Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 (1991).

2023“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different had the jury been properly instructed.” People v. Pomykala, 203 Ill. 2d 198, 210 (2003).

2023Id. ¶ 59. “[T]wo directly conflicting instructions on an essential element, one stating the law correctly and the other erroneously, cannot be cured this way due to the simple fact that we can never know which instruction the jury was following.” Id. ¶ 54 In line with Hartfield, we conclude that directly conflicting instructions may be harmless when they do not concern a disputed essential issue in the case so that there is not a fear that the jury relied on the incorrect instruction. - 18 - ¶ 55 Since we have concluded that erroneous conflicting jury instructions may be harmless, we must cons

2007See Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d at 557 , quoting Alvine, 173 Ill. 2d at 290 (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if a proper instruction had been given”).

2007See Kirchner, 194 Ill.2d at 557 , 252 Ill.Dec. 520 , 743 N.E.2d 94 , quoting Alvine, 173 Ill.2d at 290 , 219 Ill.Dec. 546 , 671 N.E.2d 713 ("An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if a proper instruction had been given").

2007See Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d at 557 , quoting Alvine, 173 Ill. 2d at 290 (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if a proper instruction had been given”).

2007See Kirchner, 194 Ill.2d at 557 , 252 Ill.Dec. 520 , 743 N.E.2d 94 , quoting Alvine, 173 Ill.2d at 290 , 219 Ill.Dec. 546 , 671 N.E.2d 713 ("An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if a proper instruction had been given").

2024“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given.” People v. Ward, 187 Ill. 2d 249, 265 (1999) (citing People v. Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 (1991)).

2007See, e.g., People v. Ward, 187 Ill. 2d 249, 265 (1999) (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given”).

2026See People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53, 69 (2008) (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been - 14 - No. 1-23-0431-B different had the jury been properly instructed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).

2023Id. ¶ 59. “[T]wo directly conflicting instructions on an essential element, one stating the law correctly and the other erroneously, cannot be cured this way due to the simple fact that we can never know which instruction the jury was following.” Id. ¶ 54 In line with Hartfield, we conclude that directly conflicting instructions may be harmless when they do not concern a disputed essential issue in the case so that there is not a fear that the jury relied on the incorrect instruction. - 18 - ¶ 55 Since we have concluded that erroneous conflicting jury instructions may be harmless, we must cons

2023“Where the evidence of guilt is clear and convincing, an instructional error may be deemed harmless.” Dennis, 181 Ill. 2d at 95 . 22 ¶ 74 In this case, had the jury been instructed by the response to their question, that while the State was not required to prove that defendant committed the charged offense on October 7, 2020, so long as the offense charged was committed after defendant’s second felony conviction in 2008, would the outcome of the trial have been different?

2005In determining whether the instruction error was harmless, a reviewing court must determine whether “evidence of [the] defendant’s guilt was so clear and convincing as to render the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Dennis, 181 Ill. 2d 87, 96 , 692 N.E.2d 325, 330 (1998).

2021“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if a proper instruction had been given.” People v. Lovelace, 251 Ill.

1996People v. Lovelace, 251 Ill.

2001"An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given." People v. Johnson , 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 (1991); People v. Fierer , 124 Ill. 2d 176, 187 (1988).

2001“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given.” People v. Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 (1991); People v. Fierer, 124 Ill. 2d 176, 187 (1988).

2005“However, an error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if a proper instruction was given.” People v. Markiewicz, 246 Ill.

2005"However, an error in a jury instruction is harmless if the result of the trial would not have been different if a proper instruction was given." People v. Markiewicz, 246 Ill.App.3d 31, 44 , 186 Ill.

2024See People v. Tompkins, 2023 IL 127805, ¶ 56 (an error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would - 16 - No. 1-23-0171 not have been different had the jury been properly instructed).

2023While we generally review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to give a particular instruction (id. at 66), we review de novo the question of whether the jury instructions accurately conveyed the applicable law to the jury (People v. Pierce, 226 Ill. 2d 470, 475 (2007)). ¶ 56 Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions.

2020When reviewing “the effect of an instructional error, we consider the jury instructions ‘as a whole,’ rather than considering the error ‘in isolation.’ ” People v. Marcos, 2013 IL App (1st) 111040, ¶ 68 (quoting Parker, 223 Ill. 2d at 501 ). ¶ 68 Although the IPI Criminal No. 706B oral instruction to the jury provided that the jury must find it “is more probably true than not true that the following mitigating factor[was] present,” the instruction later referred to defendant’s “belief that such circumstances existed was unreasonable or acted under a sudden and intense passion resulting from se

2020An error in a jury instruction rises to the level of plain error only when the error “creates a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.” People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 191 (2010).

1993See, e.g., People v. Johnson (1992), 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 , 585 N.E.2d 78, 90 (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given”); People v. Pitsonbarger (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 353, 377 , 568 N.E.2d 783, 792 (“Although it is not mandated in every case *** it is constitutionally permissible for a reviewing court to determine that given the facts of the individual case, the result would have been the same had the defect in the [jury] instructions not been present”); People v. Austin

1993See, e.g., People v. Johnson (1992), 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 , 585 N.E.2d 78, 90 (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given”); People v. Pitsonbarger (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 353, 377 , 568 N.E.2d 783, 792 (“Although it is not mandated in every case *** it is constitutionally permissible for a reviewing court to determine that given the facts of the individual case, the result would have been the same had the defect in the [jury] instructions not been present”); People v. Austin

1993See, e.g., People v. Johnson (1992), 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 , 585 N.E.2d 78, 90 (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given”); People v. Pitsonbarger (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 353, 377 , 568 N.E.2d 783, 792 (“Although it is not mandated in every case *** it is constitutionally permissible for a reviewing court to determine that given the facts of the individual case, the result would have been the same had the defect in the [jury] instructions not been present”); People v. Austin

1993See, e.g., People v. Johnson (1992), 146 Ill. 2d 109, 137 , 585 N.E.2d 78, 90 (“An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different if the proper instruction had been given”); People v. Pitsonbarger (1990), 142 Ill. 2d 353, 377 , 568 N.E.2d 783, 792 (“Although it is not mandated in every case *** it is constitutionally permissible for a reviewing court to determine that given the facts of the individual case, the result would have been the same had the defect in the [jury] instructions not been present”); People v. Austin