Court Opinion

ID: 9729084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:26:13.298348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.278564
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the majority’s determination that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on the definition of knowledge. I agree with the State that defendant has forfeited this issue by failing to include the same in her posttrial motion. Plain error applies; and on the merits, the trial court did not err in its instructions and response to the jury’s question. The failure of the trial court to give paragraph 2 of IPI Criminal 4th No. 5.01B does not rise to the level of plain error. The trial court’s instructions given pursuant to IPI Criminal 4th Nos. 5.01, 5.01B, 7.02, and 7.08 adequately instructed the jury. I dare to suggest that the instruction given required a stricter element of proof, “awareness of the substantial probability that such fact exists” (IPI Criminal 4th No. 5.01B(1)) as compared to “consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct” (IPI Criminal 4th No. 5.01B(2)). The defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. The instructions as given by the trial court were appropriate, and the court’s order should be affirmed.