Bindinglaw

IL · jury_instructions

Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 13.44A

Issues In Retail Theft By Altering, Transferring, Removing Price Indicia--Value $150 Or

activein force · 2026-08-19 – presentas-observed

Less--Value Exceeding $150

To sustain the charge of retail theft, the State must prove the following propositions:

First Proposition: That ____ was a merchant; and

Second Proposition: That the merchandise was [(displayed) (held) (stored) (offered)] for

sale in a retail mercantile establishment; and

Third Proposition: That the defendant knowingly [(altered) (transferred) (removed)] any

[(label) (price tag) (indicia of value) (marking which aids in determining value)] affixed to the

merchandise; and

Fourth Proposition: That the defendant attempted to purchase personally or in consort

with another the merchandise at less than the full retail value; and

Fifth Proposition: That the defendant intended to deprive the merchant of the full retail

value of the merchandise[; and

Sixth Proposition: That the full retail value of the merchandise exceeded $150].

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions

has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions

has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.

Provenance

Source
illinoiscourts.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-20
Edition
2026-08-19
Content hash
04d0d01a7d5aedd6886baf1d80950175a747876d8d2e9840d3c7b1c65e3d8ce4
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.