725 ILCS 120/1
Short title
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 120/1)
(from Ch. 38, par. 1401)
Sec. 1.
Short title.
This Article I may be cited as the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act.
(Source: P.A. 88-489.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Rowe v. Raoul
Rowe v. Raoul (2023)
“As we have already mentioned, those provisions require a court to consider the “nature and seriousness of the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons that would be posed by the defendant’s release,” including crime victims and their family members, “as…”
People v. Richardson (2001)
“On direct appeal, defendant sought a new sentencing hearing, arguing that the trial court improperly considered multiple victim impact statements in violation of the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (Act) (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1998)), and that the provision of…”
People v. Ballard (2002)
“Defendant contends that Stieber's detailed testimony concerning the after effects of defendant's offense was neither reliable nor relevant and that it is victim impact testimony that is barred by the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1996)).…”
People v. Malchow (2000)
“(West 1994)), the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/1-1-1 et seq.”
People v. Hope (1998)
“[1] The Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (Act) (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1994)) "provides for the right of victims of violent crimes, including the relatives of a deceased, to address the court regarding the impact of the criminal conduct upon their lives.”
People v. Jackson (2001)
“This court held: “[The Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. ( West 1994 ))] does not contemplate, and we will not condone, an expansion of victim impact statements to include evidence from victims other than the victims of the offense on trial.”
People v. Cervantes (1999)
“Article 35 also amended the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1994)) to allow State's Attorneys and the Prisoner Review Board to provide victims and witnesses of violent crimes with more information and to expand the rights of victims in…”
In re Br. M. & Bo. M. (2021)
“does not meet the definition of “crime victim” under the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2016)). That statute defines “crime victim” as “any natural person determined by the prosecutor or the court to have suffered direct physical or…”
People v. Harth (2003)
“On appeal, defendant argues that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing when the trial court admitted a victim impact statement not allowed under the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (Act) (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2000)). We affirm.”
Macknin v. Macknin (2010)
“’s rights were somehow defined by the Illinois Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2008)), as there was no indictment or criminal prosecution, the child was not named as a victim, and this was not a criminal proceeding.”
People v. Benford (1998)
“this timely appeal, asserting that: (1) she was denied a fair trial by the trial court’s admission of an evidentiary photograph of the decedent’s nude body, where it depicted a large, unexplained laceration on the decedent’s body; (2) during sentencing, the trial court…”
People v. Robinson (1999)
“1 The statute enacted by the General Assembly to enforce the Crime Victim’s Rights Amendment (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1996)) is also irrelevant to the matter of abatement of criminal prosecutions.”
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.
|