M.R. 3140

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Order entered April 3, 1997

(Deleted material is struck through and new material is underscored.)

Effective May 1, 1997, Rules 213, 234 and 431 are amended as follows'.

Amended Rule 213

Rule 213. Written Interrogatories to Parties

(i) Duty to Supplement. A party has a duty to seasonably supplement or amend any prior answer or response whenever new or additional information subsequently becomes known to that patty.

If a deposition of an opinion witness is taken. the witness' testimony at trial will be limited to the opinion expressed therein. in addition to those opinions identified in answers to Rule 213(g) interrogatories.

The opinions expressed in a deposition need not be later specifically identified in Rule 213(a) answers but. upon objection at trial. the burden is on the proponent of the witness to prove the opinions were provided in deposition or Rule 213(a) interrogatory.

Amended July 1, 1985, effective August 1, 1985; amended June 1, 1995, effective January 1, 1996' amended April 3 1997 effective May I.1997.

Amended Rule 234

Rule 234. Voir Dire Examination of Jurors and Cautionary Instructions

The court shall conduct the voir dire examination of prospective jurors by putting to them questions it thinks appropriate touching upon their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case on trial. The court may permit the parties to submit additional questions to it for further inquiry if it thinks they are appropriate, or may and shall permit the parties to supplement the examination by such direct inquiry as the court deems proper for a reasonable period of time depending upon the length of examination by the court the complexity of the case. and the nature and extent of the damages. Questions shall not directly or indirectly concern matters of law or instructions. The court may shall acquaint prospective jurors with the general duties and responsibilities of jurors.

Amended effective July 1,1975; amended August 9,1983, effective October I. 1983;

amended April 3. 1997. effective May 1 1997.

Amended Rule 431

Rule 431. Voir Dire Examination

In criminal cases, the voir dire examination of jurors shall be conducted in accordance with Rule 234. (a) The court shall conduct voir dire examination of prospective jurors by putting to them questions it thinks appropriate. touchin upon their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case at trial. The court may permit the parties to submit additional questions to it for further inquiry if it thinks they are appropriate and shall permit the parties to supplement the examination by such direct inquiry as the court deems proper for a reasonable period of time depending upon the length of examination by the court. the complexity of the case and the nature of the charges. Questions shall not directly or indirectly concern matters of law or instructions. The court shall acquaint prospective jurors with the aeneral duties and responsibilities of jurors.

(b) If requested by the defendant, the court shall ask each potential juror: individually or in a group. whether that juror understands and accepts the following principles: (1) that the defendant is presumed innocent of the charge(s) against him or her (2) that before a defendant can be convicted the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: (3) that the defendant is not required to offer any evidence on his or her own behalf: and (4) that the defendant's failure to testify cannot be held against him or her; however, no inquiry of a prospective juror shall be made into the defendant's failure to testify when the defendant objects.

The court's method of inquiry shall provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principles set out in this section.

Renumbered October 1, 1971 amended April 3 1997 effective May 1, 1997

Committee Comments

This rule is new. It was necessitated by the division of the civil and criminal rules into separate articles. Former Rule 24-1, from which now rule 234 is derived, was applicable to both civil and criminal cases. It was therefore necessary to include a rule which would conform the practice in criminal cases to that in civil cases. The new language is intended to ensure compliance with the requirements of People v. Zehr 103 III. 2d 472 (1984). It seeks to end the practice where the judge makes a broad statement of the applicable law followed by a general question concerning the juror's willingness to follow the law.

-3-