Opinion ID: 2015103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Refusal of Jury Instructions

Text: Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury 16 tendered jury instructions. The defendant, like the State, is entitled to the submission of appropriate jury instructions on the law that applies to the defendant's theory of the case if there was evidence in the record to support that theory. However, it is for the trial court to determine, after considering the facts and the governing law, whether the jury should be instructed on a particular subject. If an appropriate IPI instruction exists, it must be used. People v. Lewis, 165 Ill.2d 305, 354-55, 209 Ill.Dec. 144, 651 N.E.2d 72 (1995); see People v. Tsombanidis, 235 Ill.App.3d 823, 837-38, 176 Ill. Dec. 426, 601 N.E.2d 1124 (1992). The decision whether to give a non-IPI instruction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Sanchez, 115 Ill.2d 238, 282, 104 Ill.Dec. 720, 503 N.E.2d 277 (1986). 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. Conversely, 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. Tsombanidis, 235 Ill.App.3d at 838, 176 Ill.Dec. 426, 601 N.E.2d 1124. Defense Instruction 1, inter alia, allowed the jury to consider any feelings or mercy or compassion you wish to extend toward the defendant. The trial court properly submitted to the jury IPI Criminal 3d No. 7C.01, which accurately states the law. The tendered instruction was erroneous. See People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill.2d 1, 41-43, 121 Ill.Dec. 224, 525 N.E.2d 30 (1988); People v. Emerson, 122 Ill.2d 411, 442-43, 119 Ill.Dec. 250, 522 N.E.2d 1109 (1987). Defense Instruction 3 sought to replace language in IPI Criminal 3d No. 7C.05, which defendant considers hopelessly opaque. The IPI instruction accurately reflects section 9-1(g) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/9-1(g) (West 1992)). Defense Instructions 10, 15, 16, and 18 were likewise unnecessary. Defendant tendered several instructions that attempted to define the term mitigating factor. However, the trial court properly submitted to the jury IPI Criminal 3d No. 7C.06. Defense Instructions 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 were unnecessary. Defendant also tendered two instructions that defined the quantum of mitigating evidence necessary for a nondeath verdict. However, IPI Criminal 3d No. 7C.05 adequately stated that law. Defense Instructions 6 and 8 were unnecessary.