crime charged error in Illinois

1988(Ogunsola, 87 Ill. 2d at 222 , 429 N.E.2d at 864 .) The failure to correctly inform the jury of the elements of the crime charged is error so grave and fundamental that the waiver rule should not apply.

1988(Ogunsola, 87 Ill. 2d at 222 , 429 N.E.2d at 864 .) The failure to correctly inform the jury of the elements of the crime charged is error so grave and fundamental that the waiver rule should not apply.

1994(People v. Griffin (1993), 247 Ill.

1994The trial court "bears the burden of seeing that the jury is instructed on the elements of the crime charged.” (People v. Parks (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 132, 137 , 357 N.E.2d 487, 489 .) While failure to instruct the jury on the elements of the crime charged is error, we are mindful that an error committed while instructing the jury does not justify reversal where the evidence is so clear and convincing that the outcome of the trial would not have been different had the jury been properly instructed.

1994The trial court "bears the burden of seeing that the jury is instructed on the elements of the crime charged.” (People v. Parks (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 132, 137 , 357 N.E.2d 487, 489 .) While failure to instruct the jury on the elements of the crime charged is error, we are mindful that an error committed while instructing the jury does not justify reversal where the evidence is so clear and convincing that the outcome of the trial would not have been different had the jury been properly instructed.

1993(People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 1, 13 , 387 N.E.2d 331, 336 .) Roberts creates a twofold test for determining when the interests of justice dictate that a trial court errs in failing to give an instruction without the prompting of counsel.

1993(People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 1, 13 , 387 N.E.2d 331, 336 .) Roberts creates a twofold test for determining when the interests of justice dictate that a trial court errs in failing to give an instruction without the prompting of counsel.

1975In People v. Rosochacki (1969), 41 Ill.2d 483 , 244 N.E.2d 136 , where it was alleged that there was a variance between the crime charged and the instruction given, the following test was used to determine if the conviction would be vitiated: “* s * [I]t [the variance] would not vitiate the conviction unless it was of such a character as to mislead the defendant in his defense or expose him to double jeopardy. [Citations.]” ( 41 Ill.2d 483, 492 .) Although a variance does exist, it did not result in a substantial injury to defendant since the jury was not misled, the defendant was not hindered

1975In People v. Rosochacki (1969), 41 Ill.2d 483 , 244 N.E.2d 136 , where it was alleged that there was a variance between the crime charged and the instruction given, the following test was used to determine if the conviction would be vitiated: “* s * [I]t [the variance] would not vitiate the conviction unless it was of such a character as to mislead the defendant in his defense or expose him to double jeopardy. [Citations.]” ( 41 Ill.2d 483, 492 .) Although a variance does exist, it did not result in a substantial injury to defendant since the jury was not misled, the defendant was not hindered

1975In the recent case of People v. Duhr, 27 Ill.App.3d 651 , 327 N.E.2d 267 (5th Dist. 1975), the court held that the new Code provisions determined defendant’s right to a jury trial at a restoration of competency hearing, although the crime charged and the hearing where defendant was held unfit to stand trial both occurred prior to the enactment of the new Code.

1975In the recent case of People v. Duhr, 27 Ill.App.3d 651 , 327 N.E.2d 267 (5th Dist. 1975), the court held that the new Code provisions determined defendant’s right to a jury trial at a restoration of competency hearing, although the crime charged and the hearing where defendant was held unfit to stand trial both occurred prior to the enactment of the new Code.

1921In the early case of Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 385 , it was said in general terms that it was competent for a defendant to give in evidence his uniform good character as a man and citizen, and the implication was that evidence should be admitted of general good character; but later, in Wistrand, v. People, 218 Ill. 323 , it was held that a general reputation for a trait of character not involved in the crime charged was inadmissible, and that is the accepted rule.

1921In the early case of Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 385 , it was said in general terms that it was competent for a defendant to give in evidence his uniform good character as a man and citizen, and the implication was that evidence should be admitted of general good character; but later, in Wistrand, v. People, 218 Ill. 323 , it was held that a general reputation for a trait of character not involved in the crime charged was inadmissible, and that is the accepted rule.