Court Opinion

ID: 9527475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:30:55.765533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:49.133076
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, dissenting: Because I do not agree with the majority that the trial court abused its discretion in choosing not to respond to the jury’s inquiry, I respectfully dissent. There was nothing unusual or particularly difficult about the evidence before the jury in this case nor the issues it was called upon to resolve. Accordingly, in my judgment, there is nothing in this record upon which the majority can find an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. I fear that a reversal on the facts in this , case will have serious-consequences. -Deliberating juries frequently ask questions, some of which make sense, many of which do not. This reversal sends a strong message to trial judges throughout the State that the appellate courts are going to be second-guessing the exercise of their discretion if they decline to answer jury questions; therefore, they would be foolish to do so. One can only shudder at the likely responses judges will feel forced to give to jury questions, particularly when those responses by definition are without any guidance, such as a standard IPI-Criminal instruction, and frequently must be given during the long hours of jury deliberation, when both court and counsel usually are not performing at their best.