720 ILCS 5/4-9
Absolute liability
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 5/4-9)
(from Ch. 38, par. 4-9)
Sec. 4-9. Absolute
liability.
A person may be guilty of an offense without having, as to each element
thereof, one of the mental states described in Sections 4-4 through 4-7
if the offense is a misdemeanor which is not punishable by incarceration or
by a fine exceeding $1,000, or the statute defining the offense clearly
indicates a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for the
conduct described.
(Source: P.A. 96-1198, eff. 1-1-11.)
(720 ILCS 5/Art. 5 heading) ARTICLE 5.
PARTIES TO CRIME
|
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Welch v. United States
Welch v. United States (2010)
“[12] [U]nless otherwise declared in this Chapter with respect to particular offenses, it is a petty offense for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any Act required in this Chapter.”
People v. Sroga (2022)
“720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 2012). A first-time violation of section 4-104(a)(4), however, is a Class A misdemeanor that carries the possibility of up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $2500.”
In Re KC (1999)
“In deciding whether the legislature intended to establish an absolute liability offense, this court considers the guidelines that the legislature set forth in section 4-9 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 1996)), which states: "A person may be guilty of an…”
People v. Ramirez (2023)
“at 605- 07 (citing 720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 2006)). The court found that section 24-5(b) contained no such clear statement of intent.”
Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, Inc. (2001)
“2d 327 (2001), a case filed concurrently with the case at bar, this court rejects the narrow approach to the application of scienter the majority here advances.”
People v. Wright (2000)
“In Tolliver, we were able to imply the mental state of knowledge plus criminal purpose as an element of section 4-104(a)(2) because that provision contained no mental state. After determining that the legislature did not intend to create an absolute liability offense, therefore,…”
People v. Grever (2004)
“" 720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 1998). We believe that section 33-3, read as a whole, clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability as to the attendant circumstance element of subsection (a).”
People v. Harris (2017)
“” 720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 2012) (“A person may be guilty of an offense without having, as to each element thereof, one of the mental states described in Sections 4-4 through 4-7 if the offense is a misdemeanor which is not punishable by incarceration or by a fine exceeding $1,000,…”
People v. Hoffman (2012)
“3d 366, 368 (1990); see also 720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 2008). As defendant correctly notes, violating an order of protection is not a strict liability offense.”
People v. Collier (2021)
“” 720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 2014). ¶ 37 The State advocates for the implication of the “knowledge” mental state, and at oral argument, defendant acknowledged that one of the three should be read into the statute.”
People v. Sito (2013)
“” 720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 2008). The committee comments to section 4-9 reveal that the legislature intended to limit the scope of absolute liability; thus, absent a clear indication that the legislature intended to impose absolute liability, or an important public policy favoring…”
People v. Sroga (2020)
“” 720 ILCS 5/4-9 (West 2012). Section 4-9 of the Criminal Code of 2012 applies to all criminal offenses even those outside the Criminal Code of 2012.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|