ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/104-10 (2026)

Presumption of Fitness; Fitness Standard

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/104-10) (from Ch. 38, par. 104-10)
    Sec. 104-10. Presumption of Fitness; Fitness Standard.) A defendant is presumed to be fit to stand trial or to plead, and be sentenced. A defendant is unfit if, because of his mental or physical condition, he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense.
(Source: P.A. 81-1217.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 160 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “Defendant argues that several times during pretrial, trial, and posttrial proceedings, he made “inappropriate, delusional, and non-responsive comments,” demonstrated a “misunderstanding of cross-examination,” and refused “to answer relevant questions,” all of which raised a bona…”
People v. Jamison, 756 N.E.2d 788 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 3× “First, defendant contends he must be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not receive a fitness hearing before he entered his plea and because the hearing held during the course of his sentencing did not strictly conform with the requirements of section 104-10 of…”
People v. Johnson, 794 N.E.2d 294 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 2× “Our state statutes have long contained provisions designed to safeguard this right (see 725 ILCS 5/104-10 et seq. (West 2000)). This statutory scheme has been held to adequately protect a defendant's due process right to be prosecuted only when fit to stand trial.”
Jimmy Ray Pitsonbarger v. Richard Gramley, 141 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “See 725 ILCS 5/104-10, 5/104-22, 5/104-26(b).”
People v. Pitsonbarger, 793 N.E.2d 609 (Ill. 2002). “" 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 1996). The fundamental purpose of a fitness hearing, therefore, is "to determine a person's ability to function within the context of a trial.”
People v. Haynes, 673 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. 1996). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 1992); People v. Eddmonds, 143 Ill.”
People v. Brandon, 643 N.E.2d 712 (Ill. 1994). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 1992); People v. Eddmonds (1991), 143 Ill.”
People v. Brown, 923 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. 2010). “725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 2006). The trial court must order a fitness hearing if a bona fide doubt is raised of the defendant's fitness.”
People v. Harris, 794 N.E.2d 181 (Ill. 2002). “" 725 ILCS 5/104-10 ( West 1998 ); People v.”
People v. Kinkead, 660 N.E.2d 852 (Ill. 1995). · cites it 2× “Although a defendant's fitness is presumed by statute (725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 1992)), the circuit court has a duty to order a fitness hearing whenever there exists a bona fide doubt as to the ability of the defendant to understand the charges and participate in his defense.”
People v. Barrow, 749 N.E.2d 892 (Ill. 2001). “The defendant has failed, however, to present any evidence to show a reasonable probability that he would have been found unfit for trial if counsel had requested a fitness hearing under the statute.”
People v. Stephens, 2012 IL App (1st) 110296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “Since both of these issues are issues that could have been raised on direct appeal, defendant also claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise them.”
Show all 160 citing cases →
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.