Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 17.30

To susta

in the charge of calculated criminal drug conspiracy, the State must prove the

following propositions:

First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly [(manufactured) (delivered) (possessed

with intent to manufacture) (possessed with intent to deliver)] ____ grams or more of a

substance containing ____, a controlled substance; and

[or]

First

Proposition: That the defendant knowingly possessed ____ grams or more of a

substance containing ____, a controlled substance; and

[or]

First

Proposition: That the defendant knowingly [(manufactured) (delivered) (possessed

with intent to manufacture) (possessed with intent to deliver)] ____, a controlled substance; and

Second Proposition: That the defendant did so as part of an agreement undertaken or

carried on with two or more other persons; and

Third Proposition: That the defendant obtained something of value greater than $500

from such [(possession) (manufacture) (delivery) (possession with intent to manufacture)

(possession with intent to deliver)] or agreement.

[or]

Third Pr

oposition: That the defendant organized, directed, or financed such [

(possession) (manufacture) (delivery) (possession with intent to manufacture) (possession with

intent to deliver)] or agreement.

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 proposit ions

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

Committ

ee Note

720 ILCS

570/405 (West, 1999) (formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 561/2, §1405).

Give I

nstruction 17.29 and see the accompanying Committee Note.

The Comm

ittee cautions against using normal principles of accountability. The defendant

himself must receive the benefit or perform the acts contained in either of the Third Propositions,

see People v. Holmes, 41 Ill.App.3d 585, 353 N.E.2d 396 (3d Dist.1976), but there is no clear

answer to the question of whether the defendant himself must have performed the acts in the

First Proposition. See People v. Vincent, 92 Ill.App.3d 446, 415 N.E.2d 1147, 47 Ill.Dec. 834

(1st Dist.1980).

_____________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

See Co

mmittee Note to Instruction 17.01, concerning verdict forms and for directions on

how the jury should be instructed when the weight of the substance is an issue.

Insert

in the appropriate blanks the name of the controlled substance and the weight.

Use appl

icable paragraphs and bracketed material.

_____________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________