Court Opinion

ID: 9533604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:33:05.916828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:05.868661
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: When a question comes from a deliberating jury, a trial judge is faced with a dilemma. Almost any response not agreed to by the litigants becomes fodder for an appeal. Any selective reading or highlighting of certain instructions violates a command contained in the instructions—do not single out an instruction. Counsel may make tactical decisions in recommending the choice of language of an instruction or which parts of a pattern instruction should be given. They do so for the best interests of their client. The cooperation that occurs is not altruistic, but it is nonetheless cooperation. The goal is to come up with a legally correct set of instructions to inform and guide the jury. Courts of review frequently admonish appellants they cannot complain about an instruction unless an alternative instruction was offered. Holder v. Caselton, 275 Ill. App. 3d 950, 959, 657 N.E.2d 680, 688 (1995); Kochan v. Owens-Coming Fiberglass Corp., 242 Ill. App. 3d 781, 800, 610 N.E.2d 683, 695 (1993). When counsel and the trial judge confer on how to answer a jury question, they are conducting a mini instruction conference. In this case, OCF said both questions would be easy to answer yes. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to this suggestion and suggested the court respond that the instructions provided contain the applicable law. Neither suggestion was of much assistance to the trial judge. If the answer was so easy and obvious, OCF could have proposed an instruction—i.e., a suggested response—in writing. Neither at trial nor at oral argument on appeal did OCF’s counsel suggest precisely what the response should have been. OCF complains on appeal about the court’s response to the jury questions. OCF provided no meaningful assistance to the trial court in framing an appropriate response, nor did the plaintiffs. However, it is OCF that contends it was disadvantaged when the trial court replied with an accurate, often-used and standard response. Our supreme court has stated: "[A] trial court may exercise its discretion and properly decline to answer a jury’s inquiries 'where the instructions are readily understandable and sufficiently explain the relevant law, where further instructions would serve no useful purpose or would potentially mislead the jury, when the jury’s inquiry involves a question of fact, or if the giving of an answer would cause the court to express an opinion which would likely direct a verdict one way or another.’ Childs, 159 Ill. 2d at 228[, 636 N.E.2d at 539].” People v. McDonald, 168 Ill. 2d 420, 460, 660 N.E.2d 832, 849-50 (1995). The instructions previously given by the trial court correctly instructed the jury. The answer, given by the trial court, after conference with counsel, was not error. With respect to the remand issues, I do not believe reversible error occurred and would affirm the judgment of the trial court.