People v. Hoffman, 980 N.E.2d 191

Hoffman was charged with violating an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-30(a)) based on text messages to his estranged wife.
The interim order limited contact to issues about the children and related matters, but the messages covered other topics and expressed affection.
During jury instructions, the State used IPI Criminal 4th Nos. 11.77 and 11.78; Hoffman proposed a non-IPI instruction requiring knowledge and intent.
The court refused Hoffman’s instruction; the jury received the State’s instructions and ultimately found Hoffman guilty.
On appeal Hoffman argues the non-IPI instruction was necessary; the court affirms, upholding the IPI instructions as correctly stating the law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether non-IPI instruction was required	People contends IPI suffices	Hoffman contends non-IPI instruction needed	No error; IPI adequate and properly stated the law
Whether IPI 11.77/11.78 correctly state mental state	IPI reflects required knowledge of the contents	Disagrees that knowledge alone suffices or omits needed distinctions	IPI instructions correctly stated the law
Whether refusal to give non-IPI instruction was an abuse of discretion	Non-IPI instruction would better capture mens rea	Judge should have given non-IPI instruction	No abuse; discretion exercised correctly; IPI governs

People v. Rebecca, 2012 IL App (2d) 091259 (2012 IL App (2d)) (guides review of non-IPI instruction and jury instruction adequacy)
People v. Martino, 2012 IL App (2d) 101244 (2012 IL App (2d)) (analysis of elements and mental state in criminal offenses)
People v. Hinton, 402 Ill. App. 3d 181 (2010) (knowledge as mental state for violating order of protection)
People v. Mandic, 325 Ill. App. 3d 544 (2001) (elements of 12-30(a) and knowledge requirement)
People v. Davit, 366 Ill. App. 3d 522 (2006) (violation of order of protection not strict liability)