ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/104-14 (2026)

Use of Statements Made During Examination or Treatment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/104-14) (from Ch. 38, par. 104-14)
    Sec. 104-14. Use of Statements Made During Examination or Treatment.) (a) Statements made by the defendant and information gathered in the course of any examination or treatment ordered under Section 104-13, 104-17 or 104-20 shall not be admissible against the defendant unless he raises the defense of insanity or the defense of drugged or intoxicated condition, in which case they shall be admissible only on the issue of whether he was insane, drugged, or intoxicated. The refusal of the defendant to cooperate in such examinations shall not preclude the raising of the aforesaid defenses but shall preclude the defendant from offering expert evidence or testimony tending to support such defenses if the expert evidence or testimony is based upon the expert's examination of the defendant.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this Section, no statement made by the defendant in the course of any examination or treatment ordered under Section 104-13, 104-17 or 104-20 which relates to the crime charged or to other criminal acts shall be disclosed by persons conducting the examination or the treatment, except to members of the examining or treating team, without the informed written consent of the defendant, who is competent at the time of giving such consent.
    (c) The court shall advise the defendant of the limitations on the use of any statements made or information gathered in the course of the fitness examination or subsequent treatment as provided in this Section. It shall also advise him that he may refuse to cooperate with the person conducting the examination, but that his refusal may be admissible into evidence on the issue of his mental or physical condition.
(Source: P.A. 81-1217.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (4th) 150759 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (4th) 150759 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “" The court sentenced defendant to an extended term of 68 months in prison for disorderly conduct and imposed costs of $222 for criminal trespass to real property. ¶ 11 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which the court denied.”
Norskog v. Pfiel, 755 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 3× “" 725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2000). In subsection (b) of section 104-14, it provides that any further use of statements made in the course of a fitness examination, beyond what is allowed in subsection (a), must be with defendant's informed written consent.”
People v. Pulliam, 680 N.E.2d 343 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 2× “See 725 ILCS 5/104-14 (West 1992) (providing that statements made by a defendant during a court-ordered fitness examination may not be admitted against the defendant unless she raises the defense of insanity or the defense of drugged or intoxicated condition).”
Johnston v. Weil, 946 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 2011). · cites it 2× “Norskog was governed by the strict requirements of section 104-14(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2006)), which mandated that statements made by a defendant and information gathered during a court-ordered mental-fitness examination "shall…”
People v. McIntosh, 2020 IL App (5th) 170068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “See 725 ILCS 5/104-14(c) (West 2012). The defendant argues that, because he was not properly admonished, he made several inculpatory statements during the examination regarding the night of the traffic stop.”
People v. Haywood, 2016 IL App (1st) 133201 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Neu in violation of section 104-14 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/104-14 (West 2010)). This section provides that statements made by the defendant and information obtained in the course of court-ordered fitness examinations "shall not be admissible against the defendant unless he…”
People v. Madison, 2014 IL App (1st) 131950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “The trial court also stated that based on the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (see 725 ILCS 5/104-14(c) (West 2012)), the court was allowed to consider Madison’s continued refusal to cooperate with any of the Forensic Clinical Services’ evaluations.”
People v. Madison, 2014 IL App (1st) 131950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “The trial court also stated that based on the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (see 725 ILCS 5/104-14(c) (West 2012)), the court was allowed to consider Madison’s continued refusal to cooperate with any of the Forensic Clinical Services’ evaluations.”
People v. Haywood, 2016 IL App (1st) 133201 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Neu in violation of section 104-14 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/104-14 (West 2010)). This section provides that statements made by the defendant and information obtained in the course of court-ordered fitness examinations "shall not be admissible against the defendant unless he…”
People v. Sutton (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 7× “725 ILCS 5/104-14 (West 1992). The State argues the statements made by the defendant were not confidential and not privileged, but admissions, properly received in evidence as exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
People v. Watson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2022). The court reasoned that because Stapleton’s report was based on her prior fitness evaluations and no additional information had been given to her when formulating her opinion, there was nothing in the sanity report that the State could not view.”
People v. Privatt, 2023 IL App (5th) 200169-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “The defendant argues that the use of such evidence is prohibited by section 104-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104-14 (West 2018)). The State contends that the evidence was properly considered because the defendant testified at the hearing and made his…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
725 ILCS 5/104-14(a): 5 cases
Norskog v. Pfiel, 755 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001). “" 725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2000). In subsection (b) of section 104-14, it provides that any further use of statements made in the course of a fitness examination, beyond what is allowed in subsection (a), must be with defendant's informed written consent.”
Johnston v. Weil, 946 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 2011). “Norskog was governed by the strict requirements of section 104-14(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2006)), which mandated that statements made by a defendant and information gathered during a court-ordered mental-fitness examination "shall…”
People v. Watson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2022). The court reasoned that because Stapleton’s report was based on her prior fitness evaluations and no additional information had been given to her when formulating her opinion, there was nothing in the sanity report that the State could not view.”
People v. Sutton (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “725 ILCS 5/104-14 (West 1992). The State argues the statements made by the defendant were not confidential and not privileged, but admissions, properly received in evidence as exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
Johnston v. Weil (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
725 ILCS 5/104-14(b): 3 cases
Norskog v. Pfiel, 755 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001). “" 725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2000). In subsection (b) of section 104-14, it provides that any further use of statements made in the course of a fitness examination, beyond what is allowed in subsection (a), must be with defendant's informed written consent.”
Johnston v. Weil, 946 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 2011). “Norskog was governed by the strict requirements of section 104-14(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104-14(a) (West 2006)), which mandated that statements made by a defendant and information gathered during a court-ordered mental-fitness examination "shall…”
People v. Sutton (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “725 ILCS 5/104-14 (West 1992). The State argues the statements made by the defendant were not confidential and not privileged, but admissions, properly received in evidence as exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
725 ILCS 5/104-14(c): 3 cases
People v. McIntosh, 2020 IL App (5th) 170068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “See 725 ILCS 5/104-14(c) (West 2012). The defendant argues that, because he was not properly admonished, he made several inculpatory statements during the examination regarding the night of the traffic stop.”
People v. Madison, 2014 IL App (1st) 131950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “The trial court also stated that based on the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (see 725 ILCS 5/104-14(c) (West 2012)), the court was allowed to consider Madison’s continued refusal to cooperate with any of the Forensic Clinical Services’ evaluations.”
People v. Madison, 2014 IL App (1st) 131950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “The trial court also stated that based on the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (see 725 ILCS 5/104-14(c) (West 2012)), the court was allowed to consider Madison’s continued refusal to cooperate with any of the Forensic Clinical Services’ evaluations.”
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.