IL EXAMPLE INSTRUCTION: 24-25.09

IL EXAMPLE INSTRUCTION: 24-25.09

State: Illinois

 

Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions–Criminal (IPJI-Crim)

IL EXAMPLE INSTRUCTION:  24-25.09

A person who initially provokes the use of force against himself is justified in the use of force only if the force used against him is so great that he reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the other person.

To sustain either the charge of first degree murder or the charge of second degree murder,  the State must prove the following propositions:

First Proposition: That the defendant performed the acts which caused the death of Ralph Hudson; and

Second Proposition: That when the defendant did so:

he intended to kill or do great bodily harm to Ralph Hudson; or

he knew that such acts would cause death to Ralph Hudson; or

he knew that such acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Ralph Hudson;

and

Third Proposition: That the defendant was not justified in using the force which he used.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, your deliberations should end, and you should return a verdict of not guilty.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should go on with your deliberations to decide whether a mitigating factor has been proved so that the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder instead of first degree murder.

You may not consider whether the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder until and unless you have first determined that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the previously stated propositions.

The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a mitigating factor is present so that he is guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder instead of first degree murder. By this I mean that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in this case, that it is more probably true than not true that the following mitigating factor is present: that the defendant, at the time he performed the acts which caused the death of Ralph Hudson, believed the circumstances to be such that they justified the deadly force he used, but his belief that such circumstances existed was unreasonable.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a mitigating factor is present so that he is guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder instead of first degree murder, you should find the defendant guilty of second degree murder

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a mitigating factor is present so that he is guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder instead of first degree murder, you should find the defendant guilty of first degree murder.

By | 2013-01-14T20:43:21+00:00 January 14th, 2013|Comments Off on IL EXAMPLE INSTRUCTION: 24-25.09