IL · jury_instructions
Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 13.50A
Issues In Computer Tampering--Obtaining Data Or Services
To sustain the charge of computer tampering, the State must prove the following
propositions:
First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly [(accessed a computer or any part of a
computer) (caused a computer or any part of a computer to be accessed) (accessed a program)
(caused a program to be accessed) (accessed data) (caused data to be accessed)]; and
Second Proposition: That the defendant obtained [(data) (services)]; and
Third Proposition: That the defendant acted [(without the authorization of the
computer's owner) (in excess of the authority granted to him by the computer's owner)]; and
Fourth Proposition: That the defendant knew that he acted [(without the authorization of
the computer's owner) (in excess of the authority granted to him by the computer's owner)].
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
53f5a8176afedb687a1504688f0bd382292417c1bd39e9cfb0699276a4569126
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.