Bindinglaw

IL · jury_instructions

Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 13.50C

Issues In Computer Tampering--Inserting A Program

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 [(inserted) (attempted to insert)] a

program into a [(computer) (computer program)]; and

Second Proposition: That the defendant [(knew) (had reason to believe)] that the

program which he [(inserted) (attempted to insert)] contained information or commands that [

(would) (might)] [(damage that computer or any other computer subsequently accessing or

being accessed by that computer) (destroy that computer or any other computer subsequently

accessing or being accessed by that computer) (alter a computer program or data from that

computer or any other computer program or data in a computer subsequently accessing or being

accessed by that computer) (delete a computer program or data from that computer or any other

computer program or data in a computer subsequently accessing or being accessed by that

computer) (remove a computer program or data from that computer or any other computer

program or data in a computer subsequently accessing or being accessed by that computer)

(cause loss to the users of that computer or the users of a computer which accesses or which is

accessed by such program)]; 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
4fa3b97b4c1dc849cd9ce722c4ef7c7eee072523d2bc2444b2c4be6c617149db
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.
Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 13.50C · binding.law