ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 5/6-2 (2026)

Insanity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 5/6-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 6-2)
    Sec. 6-2. Insanity.
    (a) A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
    (b) The terms "mental disease or mental defect" do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
    (c) A person who, at the time of the commission of a criminal offense, was not insane but was suffering from a mental illness, is not relieved of criminal responsibility for his conduct and may be found guilty but mentally ill.
    (d) For purposes of this Section, "mental illness" or "mentally ill" means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person's judgment, but not to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior.
    (e) When the defense of insanity has been presented during the trial, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. However, the burden of proof remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of each of the offenses charged, and, in a jury trial where the insanity defense has been presented, the jury must be instructed that it may not consider whether the defendant has met his burden of proving that he is not guilty by reason of insanity until and unless it has first determined that the State has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense with which he is charged.
(Source: P.A. 89-404, eff. 8-20-95; 90-593, eff. 6-19-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: People v. Valdez, 2022 IL App (1st) 181463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Valdez, 2022 IL App (1st) 181463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 6× “” 720 ILCS 5/6-2 (West 1994). In 1995, the General Assembly removed that second basis, leaving only the first as an affirmative defense in Illinois.”
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 6× “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2004). Where a defendant raises the affirmative defense of insanity, he bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity, while the State retains the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Urdiales, 871 N.E.2d 669 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 3× “(d) For purposes of this Section, `mental illness' or `mentally ill' means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person's judgment, but not to the extent that he is…”
People v. Ramsey, 735 N.E.2d 533 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 5× “In finding defendant guilty of these offenses, the jury rejected defendant's claim that he was insane under section 6-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as amended *534 by section 15 of Public Act 89-404 (720 ILCS 5/6-2 (West 1996)). The jury also determined that defendant was…”
People v. Jackson, 949 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “" 720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2006). A defendant raising the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity has the burden of proving insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
People v. Kando, 921 N.E.2d 1166 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 6× “He first argues that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court’s finding of guilty but mentally ill was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
People v. Lantz, 712 N.E.2d 314 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 4× “However, the burden of proof remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of each of the offenses charged, and, in a jury trial where the insanity defense has been presented, the jury must be instructed that it may not consider whether the…”
People v. Romero, 2018 IL App (1st) 143132 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2014). ¶ 2 On appeal, defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction but contends that the court erred in rejecting his insanity defense where the defense expert was more qualified than the State expert and considered…”
People v. Weeks, 2011 IL App (1st) 100395 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “Under section 6-2(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2010)), “[a] person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of…”
People v. Smith, 745 N.E.2d 1194 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 2× “" This evidence does not constitute a substantial insanity defense.”
Durlyn Eddmonds v. Howard Peters, III, 93 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “This certainly follows, because if a person were insane, his condition would not simply be a mitigating factor, it would be a shield from a sentence of death, if not a defense to the crime itself.”
People v. Harrison, 877 N.E.2d 432 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 3× “A defendant found NGRI is completely absolved of the crime and will not face punishment, while a defendant found GBMI remains criminally responsible for the offense.”
Show all 103 citing cases →
— 720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) — 66 cases
People v. Valdez, 2022 IL App (1st) 181463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 720 ILCS 5/6-2 (West 1994). In 1995, the General Assembly removed that second basis, leaving only the first as an affirmative defense in Illinois.”
People v. Jackson, 949 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “" 720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2006). A defendant raising the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity has the burden of proving insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2004). Where a defendant raises the affirmative defense of insanity, he bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity, while the State retains the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Lantz, 712 N.E.2d 314 (Ill. 1999). “However, the burden of proof remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of each of the offenses charged, and, in a jury trial where the insanity defense has been presented, the jury must be instructed that it may not consider whether the…”
People v. Romero, 2018 IL App (1st) 143132 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2014). ¶ 2 On appeal, defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction but contends that the court erred in rejecting his insanity defense where the defense expert was more qualified than the State expert and considered…”
— 720 ILCS 5/6-2(b) — 3 cases
People v. Baldwin, 2021 IL App (1st) 190363-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. Williams, 2020 IL App (1st) 181471-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Morris, 2026 IL App (1st) 240944-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026).
— 720 ILCS 5/6-2(c) — 24 cases
People v. Runge, 917 N.E.2d 940 (Ill. 2009).
People v. Urdiales, 871 N.E.2d 669 (Ill. 2007). “(d) For purposes of this Section, `mental illness' or `mentally ill' means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person's judgment, but not to the extent that he is…”
People v. Jackson, 949 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “" 720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2006). A defendant raising the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity has the burden of proving insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2004). Where a defendant raises the affirmative defense of insanity, he bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity, while the State retains the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Harrison, 877 N.E.2d 432 (Ill. 2007). “A defendant found NGRI is completely absolved of the crime and will not face punishment, while a defendant found GBMI remains criminally responsible for the offense.”
— 720 ILCS 5/6-2(d) — 10 cases
People v. Urdiales, 871 N.E.2d 669 (Ill. 2007). “(d) For purposes of this Section, `mental illness' or `mentally ill' means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person's judgment, but not to the extent that he is…”
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2004). Where a defendant raises the affirmative defense of insanity, he bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity, while the State retains the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Lantz, 712 N.E.2d 314 (Ill. 1999). “However, the burden of proof remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of each of the offenses charged, and, in a jury trial where the insanity defense has been presented, the jury must be instructed that it may not consider whether the…”
People v. Sadelski, 2020 IL App (1st) 180886-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Smith, 2025 IL App (1st) 220365-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
— 720 ILCS 5/6-2(e) — 35 cases
People v. Weeks, 2011 IL App (1st) 100395 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Under section 6-2(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2010)), “[a] person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of…”
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2004). Where a defendant raises the affirmative defense of insanity, he bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity, while the State retains the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Romero, 2018 IL App (1st) 143132 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “720 ILCS 5/6-2(a) (West 2014). ¶ 2 On appeal, defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction but contends that the court erred in rejecting his insanity defense where the defense expert was more qualified than the State expert and considered…”
People v. Hill, 697 N.E.2d 316 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
People v. Kando, 921 N.E.2d 1166 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “He first argues that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court’s finding of guilty but mentally ill was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
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.