We find defendant's reliance on Lynch misplaced. Lynch applies only where the theory of self-defense is properly raised. ( People v. Isbell (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 854, 886, 532 N.E.2d 964, 971.) It is a question of law whether defendant has produced sufficient evidence to raise the issue of self-defense. People v. Everette (1990), 141 Ill.2d 147, 157, 565 N.E.2d 1295, 1299.

See generally Phillips, 127 Ill.2d at 535. We also find no merit in defendant's contention, based on People v. Isbell (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 854, that his mental or emotional condition somehow precludes a finding of exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior. In Isbell, the defendant charged with murder was found guilty but mentally ill, and even the prosecution's psychiatric expert testified that the defendant suffered from major depression and a paranoid personality.

• 3 It is fundamental that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case. ( People v. Lefler (1967), 38 Ill.2d 216, 222; People v. Isbell (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 854, 865.) In a criminal prosecution, very slight evidence on a given theory will justify the giving of an instruction on that theory.

Second, the appellate court held that the issues (1) whether the court erred in admitting the gang and drug testimony of Clark and (2) whether the court erred in admitting bloody photographs of the deceased were waived because Jerrold failed to support his appellate arguments with citations to the record or to legal authority in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (requiring arguments to "contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on"). These rulings were in accord with Flynn v. Vancil, 242 N.E.2d 237, 241 (Ill. 1968), People v. Williams, 640 N.E.2d 981, 984 (Ill.App.Ct. 1994), People v. Loera, 619 N.E.2d 1300, 1316 (Ill.App.Ct. 1993), and People v. Isbell, 532 N.E.2d 964, 970 (Ill.App.Ct. 1988). Thus, these claims are procedurally barred.

People v. Lantz, 186 Ill.2d 243, 261-62 (1999). More specifically, the appellate court has held that the failure to include record citations when the argument requires an examination of the record results in waiver of the issue on appeal. People v. Loera, 250 Ill. App.3d 31, 54 (1993); see also People v. Isbell, 177 Ill. App.3d 854, 864 (1988). When the appellate court is faced with briefs that fail to comply with Rule 341(e)(6) or 341(e)(7), but the record is short and the issues are simple, the court ordinarily will admonish the attorney but address the issues anyway.

Consequently, defendant's claim is waived. See Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)); People v. Isbell (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 854, 864. 6. FAILURE TO STRIKE IMPROPER TESTIMONY

On appeal, defendant has the burden of presenting each issue in a clearly defined manner with citations to the pertinent authority and to the record or risk waiver of the issue. (See People v. Trimble (1989), 181 Ill. App.3d 355, 356-57; People v. Isbell (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 854, 864.) Accordingly, defendant's first argument is waived.

But this evidence does not establish at least three of the elements of self-defense, i.e., force was threatened against a person, the danger of harm was imminent, and a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to avert the danger and that the kind and amount of force she used was necessary. ( People v. Isbell (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 854, 865, 532 N.E.2d 964.) The use of deadly force in self-defense has restrictions.

• 15 In general, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his theory of the case and on the law applicable to any statement of facts which the jury may properly find to have been proved. ( People v. Isbell (1988), 177 Ill. App.3d 854, 865.) In a criminal case, very slight evidence on a given theory will justify giving an instruction on that theory.