ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (2026)

Testimony by a victim who is a child or a person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or a person affected by a developmental disability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/106B-5)
    Sec. 106B-5. Testimony by a victim who is a child or a person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or a person affected by a developmental disability.
    (a) In a proceeding in the prosecution of an offense of criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, aggravated battery, or aggravated domestic battery, trafficking in persons, involuntary servitude, or involuntary sexual servitude of a minor, a court may order that the testimony of a victim who is a child under the age of 18 years or a person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or a person affected by a developmental disability be taken outside the courtroom and shown in the courtroom by means of a closed circuit television if:
        (1) the testimony is taken during the proceeding; and
        (2) the judge determines that testimony by the child
    
victim or victim with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or victim affected by a developmental disability in the courtroom will result in the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability suffering serious emotional distress such that the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability cannot reasonably communicate or that the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability will suffer severe emotional distress that is likely to cause the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability to suffer severe adverse effects.
    (b) Only the prosecuting attorney, the attorney for the defendant, and the judge may question the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability.
    (c) The operators of the closed circuit television shall make every effort to be unobtrusive.
    (d) Only the following persons may be in the room with the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability when the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability testifies by closed circuit television:
        (1) the prosecuting attorney;
        (2) the attorney for the defendant;
        (3) the judge;
        (4) the operators of the closed circuit television
    
equipment; and
        (5) any person or persons whose presence, in the
    
opinion of the court, contributes to the well-being of the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability, including a person who has dealt with the child in a therapeutic setting concerning the abuse, a parent or guardian of the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability, and court security personnel.
    (e) During the child's or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability's testimony by closed circuit television, the defendant shall be in the courtroom and shall not communicate with the jury if the cause is being heard before a jury.
    (f) The defendant shall be allowed to communicate with the persons in the room where the child or person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or person affected by a developmental disability is testifying by any appropriate electronic method.
    (f-5) There is a rebuttable presumption that the testimony of a victim who is a child under 13 years of age shall testify outside the courtroom and the child's testimony shall be shown in the courtroom by means of a closed circuit television. This presumption may be overcome if the defendant can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child victim will not suffer severe emotional distress.
    (f-6) Before the court permits the testimony of a victim outside the courtroom that is to be shown in the courtroom by means of a closed circuit television, the court must make a finding that the testimony by means of closed circuit television does not prejudice the defendant.
    (g) The provisions of this Section do not apply if the defendant represents himself pro se.
    (h) This Section may not be interpreted to preclude, for purposes of identification of a defendant, the presence of both the victim and the defendant in the courtroom at the same time.
    (i) This Section applies to prosecutions pending on or commenced on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1994.
    (j) For the purposes of this Section, "developmental disability" includes, but is not limited to, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.
(Source: P.A. 103-164, eff. 1-1-24; 104-159, eff. 1-1-26.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: People v. Stechly, 870 N.E.2d 333 (Ill. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Stechly, 870 N.E.2d 333 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 1998). Testimony by closed-circuit television was an option in this case that may have greatly reduced any adverse effects of testifying.”
People v. Lloyd, 2013 IL 113510 (Ill. 2013). “725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West Supp. 2012). The lead opinion usurps the legislature’s determination and imposes its own remedy of essentially forbidding the charge from going forward at all where it is based on a particular 13-year- old’s lack of maturity and knowledge about sexual…”
People v. Rolandis G., 902 N.E.2d 600 (Ill. 2008). “See 725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2006). There may also be other ways to eliminate any adverse effects of testifying in compliance with the confrontation clause.”
People v. Martinez, 2021 IL App (1st) 172097 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “Although he acknowledges that section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2012)) provides a mechanism by which minor victims of sexual assault may testify via closed-circuit television, he argues that the circuit court failed to…”
People v. Franklin, 2023 IL App (1st) 200996 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 4× “He asserts that the portion of section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2018)), permitting the court to authorize such procedures for adult accusers with intellectual disabilities, is facially unconstitutional.”
People v. Rajner, 2021 IL App (4th) 180505 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “Pretrial Proceedings ¶6 In February 2018, the State filed a motion to allow the minors to testify via closed-circuit television pursuant to section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2016)). Later, the then-guardian of K.”
In re Marriage of Doe, 2024 IL App (1st) 230935 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2022). Under that section, a child can testify outside of the courtroom via closed-circuit television if the testimony is taken during the proceeding and the judge determines that testimony by the child victim in the courtroom will result in the child…”
People v. Salgado, 2012 IL App (2d) 100945 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “The State sought to have the victim testify via closed-circuit television, as section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 1996)) permits when the court has made the required findings of fact.”
People v. Hawkins, 2023 IL App (4th) 190882-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “to testify via CCTV, pursuant to section 106B-5(a)(2) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/106B-5(a)(2) (West 2018)), because the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate the necessary prerequisites existed at the time of trial.”
People v. Rajner, 2021 IL App (4th) 180505 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “Pretrial Proceedings ¶6 In February 2018, the State filed a motion to allow the minors to testify via closed-circuit television pursuant to section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2016)). Later, the then-guardian of K.”
People v. Williamson, 2024 IL App (4th) 230291-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “725 ILCS 5/106B-5(a) (West 2022) (allowing child victims to contemporaneously testify by closed circuit television from outside the courtroom).”
People v. Martinez, 2021 IL App (1st) 172097 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Although he acknowledges that section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2012)) provides a mechanism by which minor victims of sexual assault may testify via closed-circuit television, he argues that the circuit court failed to…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/106B-5(a) — 3 cases
People v. Williamson, 2024 IL App (4th) 230291-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “725 ILCS 5/106B-5(a) (West 2022) (allowing child victims to contemporaneously testify by closed circuit television from outside the courtroom).”
People v. Privatt, 2023 IL App (5th) 200169-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
People v. Williams, 2024 IL App (5th) 230437-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 725 ILCS 5/106B-5(a)(2) — 5 cases
People v. Rajner, 2021 IL App (4th) 180505 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Pretrial Proceedings ¶6 In February 2018, the State filed a motion to allow the minors to testify via closed-circuit television pursuant to section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2016)). Later, the then-guardian of K.”
People v. Franklin, 2023 IL App (1st) 200996 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “He asserts that the portion of section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2018)), permitting the court to authorize such procedures for adult accusers with intellectual disabilities, is facially unconstitutional.”
People v. Hawkins, 2023 IL App (4th) 190882-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “to testify via CCTV, pursuant to section 106B-5(a)(2) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/106B-5(a)(2) (West 2018)), because the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate the necessary prerequisites existed at the time of trial.”
People v. Rajner, 2021 IL App (4th) 180505 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Pretrial Proceedings ¶6 In February 2018, the State filed a motion to allow the minors to testify via closed-circuit television pursuant to section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2016)). Later, the then-guardian of K.”
People v. Fletcher (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
— 725 ILCS 5/106B-5(g) — 1 case
People v. Franklin, 2023 IL App (1st) 200996 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “He asserts that the portion of section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2018)), permitting the court to authorize such procedures for adult accusers with intellectual disabilities, is facially unconstitutional.”
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.