ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 205
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 205/9 (2026)

Recovery; examination and hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 205/9) (from Ch. 38, par. 105-9)
    Sec. 9. Recovery; examination and hearing.
    (a) An application in writing setting forth facts showing that the sexually dangerous person or criminal sexual psychopathic person has recovered may be filed before the committing court. Upon receipt thereof, the clerk of the court shall cause a copy of the application to be sent to the Director of the Department of Corrections. The Director shall then cause to be prepared and sent to the court a socio-psychiatric report concerning the applicant. The report shall be prepared by an evaluator licensed under the Sex Offender Evaluation and Treatment Provider Act. The court shall set a date for the hearing upon the application and shall consider the report so prepared under the direction of the Director of the Department of Corrections and any other relevant information submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
    (b) At a hearing under this Section, the Attorney General or State's Attorney who filed the original application shall represent the State. The sexually dangerous person or the State may elect to have the hearing before a jury. The State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant is still a sexually dangerous person.
    (c) If the applicant refuses to speak to, communicate with, or otherwise fails to cooperate with the State's examiner, the applicant may only introduce evidence and testimony from any expert or professional person who is retained to conduct an examination based upon review of the records and may not introduce evidence resulting from an examination of the person. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act, all evaluations conducted under this Act and all Illinois Department of Corrections treatment records shall be admissible at all proceedings held under this Act.
    (d) If a person has previously filed an application in writing setting forth facts showing that the sexually dangerous person or criminal sexual psychopathic person has recovered and the court determined either at a hearing or following a jury trial that the applicant is still a sexually dangerous person, or if the application is withdrawn, no additional application may be filed for 2 years after a finding that the person is still sexually dangerous or after the application is withdrawn, except if the application is accompanied by a statement from the treatment provider that the applicant has made exceptional progress and the application contains facts upon which a court could find that the condition of the person had so changed that a hearing is warranted.
    (e) If the person is found to be no longer dangerous, the court shall order that he or she be discharged. If the court finds that the person appears no longer to be dangerous but that it is impossible to determine with certainty under conditions of institutional care that the person has fully recovered, the court shall enter an order permitting the person to go at large subject to the conditions and supervision by the Director as in the opinion of the court will adequately protect the public. In the event the person violates any of the conditions of the order, the court shall revoke the conditional release and recommit the person under Section 5-6-4 of the Unified Code of Corrections under the terms of the original commitment. Upon an order of discharge every outstanding information and indictment, the basis of which was the reason for the present detention, shall be quashed.
(Source: P.A. 98-88, eff. 7-15-13.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: People v. Craig, 934 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Craig, 934 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 14× “In April 2002, respondent filed a pro se “Application Showing Recovery” pursuant to section 9 of the Act (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2002)) in the circuit court of Wayne County.”
People v. Trainor, 752 N.E.2d 1055 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 7× “725 ILCS 205/9 (West 1998). We now turn to the second part of the Act, the recovery proceeding.”
People v. Vercolio, 843 N.E.2d 417 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 18× “In 2002, the respondent filed an application asking the trial court to find that he was recovered (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2002)). At an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled that the proposed testimony of the State's expert witness met the standard for admissibility in Frye v.”
People v. Trainor, 785 N.E.2d 568 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 15× “MODIFIED UPON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING Justice SLATER delivered the opinion of the court: The respondent, Timothy Trainor, was adjudicated a sexually dangerous person in May 1984.”
People v. Burns, 809 N.E.2d 107 (Ill. 2004). · cites it 4× “On May 14, 2001, respondent filed the application for discharge pursuant to section 9 of the SDPA (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2000)). 1 Section 9 provides that a person committed under the SDPA may file an application at any time showing that he has recovered and requesting that he be…”
People v. McDougle, 708 N.E.2d 482 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 9× “JUSTICE GEIGER delivered the opinion of the court: On February 21, 1996, the defendant, Morris McDougle, filed an application for recovery pursuant to section 9 of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 1996)). Specifically, the defendant sought a…”
People v. Grant, 2016 IL 119162 (Ill. 2016). · cites it 5× “) 725 ILCS 205/9(a) (West 2012). The State asserts that it is implicitly granted the right to retain an expert by section 9(c) of the SDPA, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: “(c) If the applicant refuses to speak to, communicate with, or otherwise fails to cooperate…”
People v. Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 6× “725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2008). Following a bench trial, respondent was found to still be sexually dangerous, and his application was denied.”
People v. Kastman, 779 N.E.2d 333 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 7× “Kastman, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his application for recovery pursuant to section 9 of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2000)). Respondent contends that the trial court erred when it (1) placed the burden of proof on him to…”
People v. Burns, 785 N.E.2d 1042 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 9× “On May 14, 2001, he filed an application for discharge pursuant to section 9 of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Act) (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2000)). Attached to his petition was a motion for an independent psychiatric examination, a motion to strike Dr.”
People v. Kastman, 2022 IL 127681 (Ill. 2022). · cites it 3× “Based on those charges, the Attorney General, on behalf of the People, sought to revoke his conditional release (725 ILCS 205/9(e) (West 2018)), claiming that he had violated the term of his conditional release prohibiting him from committing new crimes.”
People v. Bailey, 2015 IL App (3d) 140497 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 8× “¶4 On May 29, 2012, defendant filed a pro se petition alleging recovery (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2012)). The matter proceeded to a bench trial held on November 14, 2013.”
Show all 97 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 205/9(a) — 33 cases
People v. Craig, 934 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “In April 2002, respondent filed a pro se “Application Showing Recovery” pursuant to section 9 of the Act (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2002)) in the circuit court of Wayne County.”
People v. Kallal, 2019 IL App (4th) 180099 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
People v. Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2008). Following a bench trial, respondent was found to still be sexually dangerous, and his application was denied.”
People v. Grant, 2016 IL 119162 (Ill. 2016). “) 725 ILCS 205/9(a) (West 2012). The State asserts that it is implicitly granted the right to retain an expert by section 9(c) of the SDPA, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: “(c) If the applicant refuses to speak to, communicate with, or otherwise fails to cooperate…”
People v. Houde, 2019 IL App (3d) 180309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
— 725 ILCS 205/9(b) — 23 cases
People v. Craig, 934 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “In April 2002, respondent filed a pro se “Application Showing Recovery” pursuant to section 9 of the Act (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2002)) in the circuit court of Wayne County.”
People v. Coan, 2016 IL App (2d) 151036 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
People v. Coan, 2016 IL App (2d) 151036 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
People v. Bailey, 2015 IL App (3d) 140497 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “¶4 On May 29, 2012, defendant filed a pro se petition alleging recovery (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2012)). The matter proceeded to a bench trial held on November 14, 2013.”
People v. Grant, 2016 IL 119162 (Ill. 2016). “) 725 ILCS 205/9(a) (West 2012). The State asserts that it is implicitly granted the right to retain an expert by section 9(c) of the SDPA, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: “(c) If the applicant refuses to speak to, communicate with, or otherwise fails to cooperate…”
— 725 ILCS 205/9(c) — 3 cases
People v. Grant, 2016 IL 119162 (Ill. 2016). “) 725 ILCS 205/9(a) (West 2012). The State asserts that it is implicitly granted the right to retain an expert by section 9(c) of the SDPA, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: “(c) If the applicant refuses to speak to, communicate with, or otherwise fails to cooperate…”
In Re Det. of Kish, 916 N.E.2d 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
People v. Grant, 2016 IL 119162 (Ill. 2016).
— 725 ILCS 205/9(d) — 5 cases
People v. Craig, 934 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “In April 2002, respondent filed a pro se “Application Showing Recovery” pursuant to section 9 of the Act (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2002)) in the circuit court of Wayne County.”
People v. Abel, 2022 IL App (5th) 210155 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
Howe v. Godinez (S.D. Ill. 2021).
Hutton v. Jeffreys (S.D. Ill. 2023).
People v. Craig (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
— 725 ILCS 205/9(e) — 9 cases
People v. Kastman, 2022 IL 127681 (Ill. 2022). “Based on those charges, the Attorney General, on behalf of the People, sought to revoke his conditional release (725 ILCS 205/9(e) (West 2018)), claiming that he had violated the term of his conditional release prohibiting him from committing new crimes.”
In Re Det. of Kish, 916 N.E.2d 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
People v. Kastman, 2021 IL App (2d) 210158 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2008). Following a bench trial, respondent was found to still be sexually dangerous, and his application was denied.”
People v. Bailey, 2015 IL App (3d) 140497 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “¶4 On May 29, 2012, defendant filed a pro se petition alleging recovery (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 2012)). The matter proceeded to a bench trial held on November 14, 2013.”
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.