Bindinglaw

IL · jury_instructions

Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 13.50B

Issues In Computer Tampering--Damage

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

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 [(damaged the computer) (destroyed the

computer) (altered a computer program) (altered data) (deleted a computer program) (deleted

data) (removed a computer program) (removed data)]; and

Third 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)]; 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
f40cea5e4f9d454163ef58b410c6e510f1ce1d020e399282066738833549c160
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.