Court Opinion

ID: 9706471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:44:19.163364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:22.993794
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: For the reasons articulated in Justice Lytton’s dissent, I disagree with Justice Schmidt’s statement that IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B “is applicable to the facts in this case.” 347 Ill. App. 3d at 431. Nevertheless, I do not believe reversible error occurred. The applicable test is whether the instructions, considered as a whole and read as a series, are sufficiently clear to avoid misleading the jury. Hartness v. Ruzich, 155 Ill. App. 3d 878 (1987); Wood v. Mobil Chemical Co., 50 Ill. App. 3d 465 (1977). A deficiency in one instruction may be cured by the clarity of others. See Hartness, 155 Ill. App. 3d 878; Wood, 50 Ill. App. 3d 465. The record shows that before giving IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B, the judge gave a series of four instructions specifically outlining the elements of the charged offense (driving under the influence of alcohol). The instructions clearly and unambiguously stated the requisite elements for a guilty verdict. Considering the instructions as a whole, I simply do not believe that IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B misled the jury. To be clear, I disagree that “IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B simply tells the jury that if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest, all of the evidence about the prescription drugs is irrelevant.” 347 Ill. App. 3d at 431. The instructions on the elements of the charged offense, not IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B, sent that message to the jury.