Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 27.05

Based On “Knowing Or Intentional” Murder --Second Degree Murder--(De fendant Is

Lester Williams)

[1.01]

Members of the jury, the evidence and arguments in this case have been completed, and I

now will instruct you as to the law.

The law that applies to this case is stated in these instructions, and it is your duty to follow all of

them. You must not single out certain instructions and disregard others. When I use the word

“he” in these instructions, I mean a male or female.

It is your duty to determine the facts and to determine them only from the evidence in this case.

You are to apply the law to the facts and in this way decide the case.

Neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence you.

From time to time it has been the duty of the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence. You

should not concern yourselves with the reasons for these rulings. You should disregard questions

and exhibits which were withdrawn or to which objections were sustained.

Any evidence that was received for a limited purpose should not be considered by you for any

other purpose.

You should disregard testimony and exhibits which the court has refused or stricken.

The evidence which you should consider consists only of the testimony of the witnesses and the

exhibits which the court has received.

You should consider all the evidence in the light of your own observations and experience in life.

Neither by these instructions nor by any ruling or remark which I have made do I mean to

indicate any opinion as to the facts or as to what your verdict should be.

Faithful performance by you of your duties as jurors is vital to the administration of justice.

[1.02]

Only you are the judges of the believability of the witnesses and of the weight to be given

to the testimony of each of them. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into

account his ability and opportunity to observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any

interest, bias, or prejudice he may have, and the reasonableness of his testimony considered in

the light of all the evidence in the case.

You should judge the testimony of the defendant in the same manner as you judge the testimony

of any other witness.

[1.03]

Opening statements are made by the attorneys to acquaint you with the facts they expect

to prove. Closing arguments are made by the attorneys to discuss the facts and circumstances in

the case and should be confined to the evidence and to reasonable inferences to be drawn from

the evidence. Neither opening statements nor closing arguments are evidence, and any statement

or argument made by the attorneys which is not based on the evidence should be disregarded.

[2.01B (modified)]

The defendant is charged with the offense of first degree murder (Type A). The defendant

has pleaded not guilty. Under the law, a person charged with first degree murder (Type A) may

be found (1) not guilty of first degree murder (Type A); or (2) guilty of first degree murder (Type

A); or (3) guilty of second degree murder.

The defendant is also charged with the offenses of first degree murder (Type B) and

home invasion. Defendant has pleaded not guilty to that charge.

[7.01X]

The terms “(Type A)” and “(Type B)” that I used in referring to first degree murder have

no legal significance. I use those terms simply to distinguish between different kinds of first

degree murder.

[2.02]

The charges against the defendants in this case are contained in a document called the

information. This document is the formal method of charging the defendant and placing the

defendant on trial. It is not any evidence against the defendant.

[2.03 (modified)]

The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him of first degree

murder (Type B) and home invasion. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage

of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdicts, and is not overcome unless from all the

evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and

this burden remains on the State throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove his

innocence.

[2.03A (modified)]

The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charge against him of first degree

murder (Type A). The presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and

during your deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all of the evidence in

this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

The State has the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder (Type A),

and this burden remains on the State throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove

his innocence.

If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder

(Type A), the defendant then has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a

mitigating factor is present so that he is guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder, and

not guilty of first degree murder (Type A). In deciding whether a mitigating factor is present, you

should consider all of the evidence bearing on this question.

[3.02]

Circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a

reasonable inference of other facts which tend to show the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Circumstantial evidence should be considered by you together with all the other evidence in the

case in arriving at your verdict.

[3.14]

Evidence has been received that the defendant has been involved in an offense other than

those charged in the indictment.

This evidence has been received on the issue of the defendant's intent and may be considered by

you only for that limited purpose.

It is for you to determine whether the defendant was involved in that offense and, if so, what

weight should be given to this evidence on the issue of the defendant's intent.

[11.53]

A person commits the offense of home invasion when he, not being a police officer

acting in the line of duty, without authority, knowingly enters the dwelling place of another when

he knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present, and intentionally causes any

injury to any person within the dwelling place.

[11.54]

To sustain the charge of home invasion, the State must prove the following propositions:

First Proposition: That the defendant was not a police officer acting in the line of duty;

and

Second Proposition: That he knowingly and without authority entered the dwelling place

of another; and

Third Proposition: That when he entered the dwelling place he knew or had reason to

know that one or more persons was present; and

Fourth Proposition: That he intentionally caused an injury to Henry Baxter, a person

within the dwelling place.

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.

[7.01 (modified)]

A person commits the offense of first degree murder (Type B) when he kills an individual

if, in performing the acts which caused the death, he is committing the offense of home invasion.

[7.02 (modified)]

To sustain the charge of first degree murder (Type B), the State must prove the following

propositions:

First Proposition: That the defendant performed the acts which caused the death of

Henry Baxter; and

Second Proposition: That when the defendant did so, he was committing the offense of

home invasion.

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.

[7.02X]

To sustain the charge of first degree murder (Type B), the State must prove that when the

defendant performed the acts which caused the death of Henry Baxter, the defendant was

committing the offense of home invasion. Accordingly, you may find the defendant guilty of first

degree murder (Type B) only if you also find the defendant guilty of home invasion.

If you find the defendant not guilty of home invasion, then you must find the defendant not

guilty of first degree murder (Type B).

[7.01 (modified)]

A person commits the offense of first degree murder (Type A) when he kills an

individual without lawful justification if, in performing the acts which caused the death,

he intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual;

or

he knows that such acts will cause death to that individual;

or

he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that

individual.

[7.03 (modified)]

A mitigating factor exists so as to reduce the offense of first degree murder (Type A) to

the lesser offense of second degree murder if, at the time of the killing, the defendant acts under

a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the deceased. Serious

provocation is conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person.

[7.05 (modified)]

A mitigating factor exists so as to reduce the offense of first degree murder (Type A) to

the lesser offense of second degree murder if at the time of the killing the defendant believes that

circumstances exist which would justify the deadly force he uses, but his belief that such

circumstances exist is unreasonable.

[7.06 (modified)]

To sustain either the charge of first degree murder (Type A) or the charge of second

degree murder, the State must prove the following propositions:

First Proposition: That the defendant performed the acts which caused the death of

Henry Baxter; and

Second Proposition: That when the defendant did so, he intended to kill or do great

bodily harm to Henry Baxter;

or

he knew that such acts would cause death to Henry Baxter;

or

he knew that such acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Henry

Baxter;

and

Third Proposition: That the defendant was not justified in using the force which he used.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions

has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, your deliberations on these charges should end,

and you should return a verdict of not guilty of first degree murder (Type A).

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions

has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should go on with your deliberations to

decide whether a mitigating factor has been proved so that the defendant is guilty of the lesser

offense of second degree murder instead of first degree murder (Type A).

You may not consider whether the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense of second

degree murder until and unless you have first determined that the State has proved beyond a

reasonable doubt each of the previously stated propositions.

The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a

mitigating factor is present so that he is guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder

instead of first degree murder (Type A). By this I mean that you must be persuaded, considering

all the evidence in this case, that it is more probably true than not true that either of the following

mitigating factors is present:

that the defendant, at the time he performed the acts which caused the death of Henry

Baxter, acted under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the

deceased,

or

that the defendant, at the time he performed the acts which caused the death of Henry

Baxter, believed the circumstances to be such that they justified the deadly force he used, but his

belief that such circumstances existed was unreasonable.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has proved by a

preponderance of the evidence that a mitigating factor is present so that he is guilty of the lesser

offense of second degree murder instead of first degree murder (Type A), you should find the

defendant guilty of second degree murder.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has not proved

by a preponderance of the evidence that a mitigating factor is present so that he is guilty of the

lesser offense of second degree murder instead of first degree murder (Type A), you should find

the defendant guilty of first degree murder (Type A).

[24-25.06]

A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes

that such conduct is necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful force.

However, a person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or

great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent

death or great bodily harm to himself.

[24-25.09]

A person who initially provokes the use of force against himself is justified in the use of

force only if the force used against him is so great that he reasonably believes he is in imminent

danger of death or great bodily harm, and he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape the

danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the other

person.

[24-25.10]

A person is not justified in the use of force if he is attempting to commit or committing

home invasion.

[26.01B (modified)]

When you retire to the jury room you first will elect one of your members as your

foreperson. He or she will preside during your deliberations on your verdict.

Your agreement on a verdict must be unanimous. Your verdict must be in writing and

signed by all of you, including your foreperson.

The defendant is charged with the offense of first degree murder (Type A). Under the

law, a person charged with first degree murder (Type A) may be found (1) not guilty of first

degree murder (Type A); or (2) guilty of first degree murder (Type A); or (3) guilty of second

degree murder.

Accordingly, you will be provided with three verdict forms: “not guilty of first degree

murder (Type A)”, “guilty of first degree murder (Type A)”, and “guilty of second degree

murder”.

>From these three verdict forms, you should select the one verdict form that reflects your

verdict and sign it as I have stated. Do not write on the other two verdict forms. Sign only one of

these verdict forms.

The defendant is also charged with the offense of first degree murder (Type B). You will

receive two forms of verdict as to this charge. You will be provided with both a “not guilty of

first degree murder (Type B)”, and a “guilty of first degree murder (Type B)” form of verdict.

>From these two verdict forms, you should select the one verdict form that reflects your

verdict pertaining to the charge of first degree murder (Type B) and sign it as I have stated. You

should not write at all on the other verdict form pertaining to the charge of first degree murder

(Type B).

The defendant is also charged with the offense of home invasion. You will receive two

forms of verdict as to this charge. You will be provided with both a “not guilty of home

invasion”, and a “guilty of home invasion” form of verdict.

>From these two verdict forms, you should select the one verdict form that reflects your

verdict pertaining to the charge of home invasion and sign it as I have stated. You should not

write at all on the other verdict form pertaining to the charge of home invasion.

[26.02]

We, the jury, find the defendant Lester Williams not guilty of first degree murder (Type

B).

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

[26.05]

We, the jury, find the defendant Lester Williams guilty of first degree murder (Type B).

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

[26.02]

We, the jury, find the defendant Lester Williams not guilty of first degree murder (Type

A).

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

[26.05]

We, the jury, find the defendant Lester Williams guilty of first degree murder (Type A).

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

[26.05]

We, the jury, find the defendant Lester Williams guilty of second degree murder.

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

[26.02]

We, the jury, find the defendant Lester Williams not guilty of home invasion.

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

[26.05]

We, the jury, find the defendant Lester Williams guilty of home invasion.

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

NOTE: IF THE ALTERNATIVE, SINGLE PAGE, MULTIPLE VERDICT FORM IS USED,

SLIGHT REVISIONS MUST BE MADE TO THE CONCLUDING INSTRUCTIONS FROM

CHAPTER 26. READ THE “INTRODUCTION” TO THIS CHAPTER FOR DETAILS.

(Set 27.05)

Alternative, Single Page, Multiple Verdict Form

We, the jury, find the defendant:

1. ____ Lester Williams not guilty of first degree murder (Type B). [26.02]

2. ____ Lester Williams guilty of first degree murder (Type B). [26.05]

Indicate your unanimous verdict by checking only one of the choices above.

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

(Set 27.05)

Alternative, Single Page, Multiple Verdict Form

We, the jury, find the defendant:

1. ____ Lester Williams not guilty of first degree murder (Type A). [26.02]

2. ____ Lester Williams guilty of first degree murder (Type A). [26.05]

3. ____ Lester Williams guilty of second degree murder. [26.05]

Indicate your unanimous verdict by checking only one of the choices above.

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

(Set 27.05)

Alternative, Single Page, Multiple Verdict Form

We, the jury, find the defendant:

1. ____ Lester Williams not guilty of home invasion. [26.02]

2. ____ Lester Williams guilty of home invasion. [26.05]

Indicate your unanimous verdict by checking only one of the choices above.

_____________________________

Foreperson

_____________________________

[Lines for eleven other jurors]

SET 27.06

Instructions Included within Set 27.06: