ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/104-11 (2026)

Raising issue; burden; fitness motions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/104-11) (from Ch. 38, par. 104-11)
    Sec. 104-11. Raising issue; burden; fitness motions.)
    (a) The issue of the defendant's fitness for trial, to plead, or to be sentenced may be raised by the defense, the State or the Court at any appropriate time before a plea is entered or before, during, or after trial. When a bonafide doubt of the defendant's fitness is raised, other than for eligible defendants charged with one or more misdemeanors subject to Section 104A-1, the court shall order a determination of the issue before proceeding further.
    (b) Upon request of the defendant that a qualified expert be appointed to examine him or her to determine prior to trial if a bonafide doubt as to his or her fitness to stand trial may be raised, the court, in its discretion, may order an appropriate examination. However, no order entered pursuant to this subsection shall prevent further proceedings in the case. An expert so appointed shall examine the defendant and make a report as provided in Section 104-15. Upon the filing with the court of a verified statement of services rendered, the court shall enter an order on the county board to pay such expert a reasonable fee stated in the order.
    (c) When a bonafide doubt of the defendant's fitness has been raised, the burden of proving that the defendant is fit by a preponderance of the evidence and the burden of going forward with the evidence are on the State. However, the court may call its own witnesses and conduct its own inquiry.
    (d) Following a finding of unfitness, the court may hear and rule on any pretrial motion or motions if the defendant's presence is not essential to a fair determination of the issues. A motion may be reheard upon a showing that evidence is available which was not available, due to the defendant's unfitness, when the motion was first decided.
(Source: P.A. 104-318, eff. 1-1-26.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 123 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: People v. Mitchell, 727 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Mitchell, 727 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 4× “Section 104-11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (the Code) (725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 1998)) provides, in part, that "[w]hen a bona fide doubt of the defendant's fitness is raised, the court shall order a determination of the issue before proceeding further.”
People v. Haynes, 673 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. 1996). · cites it 4× “725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 1992); Brandon, 162 Ill.”
People v. Harris, 794 N.E.2d 181 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 2× “Strickland—Failure to Request a Fitness Hearing Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a fitness hearing pursuant to section 104-11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) ( West 1998 )). Under section 104-11(a),…”
People v. Manskey, 2016 IL App (4th) 140440 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 5× “), but because "[t]he issue of the defendant's fitness *** to be sentenced" may also "be raised by the defense" (725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2012)), we interpret "prior to trial" as meaning also "prior to sentencing.”
People v. Westfall, 2018 IL App (4th) 150997 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 725 ILCS 5/104-11(b) (West 2014). ¶ 9 In November 2014, when the trial court conducted a hearing on this motion, defense counsel informed the court that he had " bona fide doubts" about defendant's ability to assist in his own defense.”
People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2008). ¶ 51 Furthermore, a trial court’s failure to order a fitness hearing sua sponte “may be reviewed as plain error” because “it concerns a substantial right.”
People v. Jamison, 756 N.E.2d 788 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 5/104-11 (West 1998). Once a bona fide doubt of the defendant's fitness has been demonstrated, the State has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is fit before the proceedings may continue.”
People v. Cleer, 766 N.E.2d 311 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “See 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2000). Upon accepting the motion and appointing a qualified expert, the trial court implicitly concluded that a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's fitness did exist.”
People v. Washington, 2016 IL App (1st) 131198 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “Based on the evidence before it, the court or jury decides the issue of a defendant’s fitness to stand trial or to plead. 725 ILCS 5/104-16 (West 2008).”
People v. Brandon, 643 N.E.2d 712 (Ill. 1994). · cites it 2× “In Eddmonds , a post-conviction proceeding, the defendant argued that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by his trial attorney's failure to investigate his fitness and to request a fitness hearing under the statutory predecessor to section 104-11 of the Code of…”
People v. Brown, 923 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. 2010). “725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2006). A number of factors may be considered in assessing whether a bona fide doubt of fitness is raised, including a defendant's irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, any prior medical opinion on the defendant's competence, and any representations…”
People v. Vernon, 805 N.E.2d 1222 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “Subsection (b) states: "Upon request of the defendant that a qualified expert be appointed to examine him or her to determine prior to trial if a bona fide doubt as to his or her fitness to stand trial may be raised, the court, in its discretion, may order an appropriate…”
Show all 123 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/104-11(1) — 1 case
People v. Yates, 2021 IL App (1st) 180114-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
— 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) — 78 cases
People v. Mitchell, 727 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. 2000). “Section 104-11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (the Code) (725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 1998)) provides, in part, that "[w]hen a bona fide doubt of the defendant's fitness is raised, the court shall order a determination of the issue before proceeding further.”
People v. Harris, 794 N.E.2d 181 (Ill. 2002). “Strickland—Failure to Request a Fitness Hearing Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a fitness hearing pursuant to section 104-11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) ( West 1998 )). Under section 104-11(a),…”
People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2008). ¶ 51 Furthermore, a trial court’s failure to order a fitness hearing sua sponte “may be reviewed as plain error” because “it concerns a substantial right.”
People v. Haynes, 673 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. 1996). “725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 1992); Brandon, 162 Ill.”
People v. Brown, 923 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. 2010). “725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2006). A number of factors may be considered in assessing whether a bona fide doubt of fitness is raised, including a defendant's irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, any prior medical opinion on the defendant's competence, and any representations…”
— 725 ILCS 5/104-11(b) — 28 cases
People v. Westfall, 2018 IL App (4th) 150997 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “See 725 ILCS 5/104-11(b) (West 2014). ¶ 9 In November 2014, when the trial court conducted a hearing on this motion, defense counsel informed the court that he had " bona fide doubts" about defendant's ability to assist in his own defense.”
People v. Manskey, 2016 IL App (4th) 140440 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “), but because "[t]he issue of the defendant's fitness *** to be sentenced" may also "be raised by the defense" (725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2012)), we interpret "prior to trial" as meaning also "prior to sentencing.”
People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (4th) 150759 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
People v. Schnoor, 2019 IL App (4th) 170571 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
People v. Vernon, 805 N.E.2d 1222 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Subsection (b) states: "Upon request of the defendant that a qualified expert be appointed to examine him or her to determine prior to trial if a bona fide doubt as to his or her fitness to stand trial may be raised, the court, in its discretion, may order an appropriate…”
— 725 ILCS 5/104-11(c) — 18 cases
People v. Jamison, 756 N.E.2d 788 (Ill. 2001). “725 ILCS 5/104-11 (West 1998). Once a bona fide doubt of the defendant's fitness has been demonstrated, the State has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is fit before the proceedings may continue.”
People v. Haynes, 673 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. 1996). “725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 1992); Brandon, 162 Ill.”
People v. Finlaw, 2023 IL App (4th) 220797 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
People v. Cleer, 766 N.E.2d 311 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “See 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2000). Upon accepting the motion and appointing a qualified expert, the trial court implicitly concluded that a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's fitness did exist.”
People v. Payne, 2018 IL App (3d) 160105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 725 ILCS 5/104-11(d) — 2 cases
People v. Braggs (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
People v. Leon (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
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.