Illinois Compiled Statutes
720 ILCS 5/7-13 (2026)
Necessity
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 5/7-13)
(from Ch. 38, par. 7-13)
Sec. 7-13.
Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of
necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the
situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a
public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably
result from his own conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Tolliver v. City of Chicago, 820 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2016).
Tolliver v. City of Chicago, 820 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2016). “See 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (delineating the defense of necessity); Under Tolliver’s version of the facts, he could not be guilty of aggravated battery because he did not intentionally drive towárds the officers, did not knowingly roll towards them, could not have stopped the car if he…”
People v. Shepherd, 2020 IL App (1st) 172706 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “¶ 37 As set forth in her appellant’s brief, defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the State failed to prove illegal possession of a weapon “because the defense at trial nevertheless conformed with the necessity defense described in 720 ILCS 5/7-13, and the State and the…”
People v. Guja, 2016 IL App (1st) 140046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2010); Govan, 169 Ill.”
People v. Boston, 2016 IL App (1st) 133497 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2010); People v. Govan, 169 Ill.”
People v. Macias, 2025 IL App (1st) 230678 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “” 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2020); Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No.”
People v. Legoo, 2020 IL 124965 (Ill. 2020). “” 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2016). Under appropriate circumstances, defendant could raise a viable necessity defense to justify his act of entering the park in violation of section 11- -9- 9.”
People v. McLENNON, 957 N.E.2d 1241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “We also note that the existence of the defense of necessity (see 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2010) ("Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed…”
People v. Valladeres, 2013 IL App (1st) 112010 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2010). The defense is unavailable here because there was no evidence of an imminent threat of harm or danger to defendant.”
People v. Kucavik, 854 N.E.2d 255 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “" 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2004). To require the defendant's conduct to be the "sole" alternative to illegal conduct would render the language in the statute referring to the accused's reasonable belief meaningless.”
City of Naperville v. Watson, 677 N.E.2d 955 (Ill. 1997). “720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 1994). Necessity is an affirmative defense.”
People v. Crowder, 2018 IL App (1st) 161226 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “3d 970 (citing 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2014) ). This "usually involves the choice between two admitted evils where other optional courses of action are unavailable, and 'the conduct chosen must promote some higher value than the value of literal compliance with the law.”
People v. Brown, 2023 IL App (4th) 220399 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “See 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2020) (establishing a defense of necessity where “the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might…”
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.
|