Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 16.24

To sustai

n the offense of criminal trespass to a cemetery, the State must prove the

following proposition[s]:

[1] That the defendant [(intentionally) (knowingly) (recklessly)] violated any of the

rules made and established by the board of directors of a cemetery for the protection or

government thereof.

[or]

[2] First

Proposition: That the defendant knowingly [(entered) (remained upon)] the

premises of a public or private cemetery without authorization; and

[3] Second Proposition: That the defendant did so during hours that the cemetery was

posted as closed to the public.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that [(this proposition) (each 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 [(this proposition) (any one

of these propositions)] has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the

defendant not guilty.

Committe

e Note

765 ILCS 835/

1(e) and (f) (West, 1992) (formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 21, §15(e) and (f)

(1991)), amended by P.A. 87-527, effective September 16, 1991.

Give I

nstruction 16.23.

Because

Sections 1(e) does not include a mental state, the Committee decided to provide

three alternative mental states pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/4-3(b) (West, 1992) (formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.

ch. 38, §4-3(b) (1991)) in paragraph [1]. The Committee believes this action to be in accordance

with People v. Anderson, 148 Ill.2d 15, 591 N.E.2d 461, 169 Ill.Dec. 288 (1992), which held that

even though the criminal hazing statute listed no mental state, Section 4 -3(b) still placed on the

State the burden of proving either intent, knowledge, or recklessness. ( But see People v. Gean,

143 Ill.2d 281, 573 N.E.2d 818, 158 Ill.Dec. 5 (1991), People v. Tolliver, 147 Ill.2d 397, 589

N.E.2d 527, 168 Ill.Dec. 127 (1992), and People v. Whitlow, 89 Ill.2d 322, 433 N.E.2d 629, 60

Ill.Dec. 587 (1982) for cases in which the Illinois Supreme Court used Section 4- 3(b) to choose

one or two, but not all three, of these mental states for particular offenses having no statutorily

specified mental state.) Select the mental state consistent with the charge. If the charging

instrument alleges the existence of more than one mental state, the same alternative mental states

may be included in the instruction.

Use appli

cable bracketed material.

The brack

eted numbers are present solely for the guidance of court and counsel and

should not be included in the instruction submitted to the jury.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When accountability is an issue, ordinarily insert the phrase “or one for whose conduct he

is lega

lly responsible” after the word “defendant” in each proposition. See Instruction 5.03.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________