ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/115-10 (2026)

Certain hearsay exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/115-10) (from Ch. 38, par. 115-10)
    Sec. 115-10. Certain hearsay exceptions.
    (a) In a prosecution for a physical or sexual act perpetrated upon or against a child under the age of 13, a person with an intellectual disability, a person with a cognitive impairment, or a person with a developmental disability, including, but not limited to, prosecutions for violations of Sections 11-1.20 through 11-1.60 or 12-13 through 12-16 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 and prosecutions for violations of Sections 10-1 (kidnapping), 10-2 (aggravated kidnapping), 10-3 (unlawful restraint), 10-3.1 (aggravated unlawful restraint), 10-4 (forcible detention), 10-5 (child abduction), 10-6 (harboring a runaway), 10-7 (aiding or abetting child abduction), 10-9 (trafficking in persons, involuntary servitude, and related offenses), 11-9 (public indecency), 11-11 (sexual relations within families), 11-21 (harmful material), 12-1 (assault), 12-2 (aggravated assault), 12-3 (battery), 12-3.2 (domestic battery), 12-3.3 (aggravated domestic battery), 12-3.05 or 12-4 (aggravated battery), 12-4.1 (heinous battery), 12-4.2 (aggravated battery with a firearm), 12-4.3 (aggravated battery of a child), 12-4.7 (drug induced infliction of great bodily harm), 12-5 (reckless conduct), 12-6 (intimidation), 12-6.1 or 12-6.5 (compelling organization membership of persons), 12-7.1 (hate crime), 12-7.3 (stalking), 12-7.4 (aggravated stalking), 12-10 or 12C-35 (tattooing the body of a minor), 12-11 or 19-6 (home invasion), 12-21.5 or 12C-10 (child abandonment), 12-21.6 or 12C-5 (endangering the life or health of a child) or 12-32 (ritual mutilation) of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 or any sex offense as defined in subsection (B) of Section 2 of the Sex Offender Registration Act, the following evidence shall be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule:
        (1) testimony by the victim of an out of court
    
statement made by the victim that he or she complained of such act to another; and
        (2) testimony of an out of court statement made by
    
the victim describing any complaint of such act or matter or detail pertaining to any act which is an element of an offense which is the subject of a prosecution for a sexual or physical act against that victim.
    (b) Such testimony shall only be admitted if:
        (1) The court finds in a hearing conducted outside
    
the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability; and
        (2) The child or person with an intellectual
    
disability, a cognitive impairment, or developmental disability either:
            (A) testifies at the proceeding; or
            (B) is unavailable as a witness and there is
        
corroborative evidence of the act which is the subject of the statement; and
        (3) In a case involving an offense perpetrated
    
against a child under the age of 13, the out of court statement was made before the victim attained 13 years of age or within 3 months after the commission of the offense, whichever occurs later, but the statement may be admitted regardless of the age of the victim at the time of the proceeding.
    (c) If a statement is admitted pursuant to this Section, the court shall instruct the jury that it is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to be given the statement and that, in making the determination, it shall consider the age and maturity of the child, or the intellectual capabilities of the person with an intellectual disability, a cognitive impairment, or developmental disability, the nature of the statement, the circumstances under which the statement was made, and any other relevant factor.
    (d) The proponent of the statement shall give the adverse party reasonable notice of his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement.
    (e) Statements described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not be excluded on the basis that they were obtained as a result of interviews conducted pursuant to a protocol adopted by a Child Advocacy Advisory Board as set forth in subsections (c), (d), and (e) of Section 3 of the Children's Advocacy Center Act or that an interviewer or witness to the interview was or is an employee, agent, or investigator of a State's Attorney's office.
    (f) For the purposes of this Section:
    "Person with a cognitive impairment" means a person with a significant impairment of cognition or memory that represents a marked deterioration from a previous level of function. Cognitive impairment includes, but is not limited to, dementia, amnesia, delirium, or a traumatic brain injury.
    "Person with a developmental disability" means a person with a disability that is attributable to (1) an intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or autism, or (2) any other condition that results in an impairment similar to that caused by an intellectual disability and requires services similar to those required by a person with an intellectual disability.
    "Person with an intellectual disability" means a person with significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning which exists concurrently with an impairment in adaptive behavior.
(Source: P.A. 104-159, eff. 1-1-26.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 290 cases (124 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · 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 7× “As a result of the convictions, the circuit court sentenced defendant to six years' imprisonment.”
People v. Reed, 838 N.E.2d 328 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 10× “'s out-of-court statements to her mother and the police would be admissible at trial under the statutory exception to the hearsay rule in section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2002)). At trial, the State called L.”
People v. Williams, 739 N.E.2d 455 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 6× “Prior to trial, the State filed a petition seeking the admission of Joshua's statements under section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1994)). The State also offered the statements under the excited utterance or spontaneous declaration…”
People v. Sharp, 825 N.E.2d 706 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 8× “VI) and (b) section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2000)) and (2) he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's rebuttal argument.”
People v. Bowen, 699 N.E.2d 577 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 9× “725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1994). A hearing was held pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, after which the court determined that the time, content and circumstances of the videotape provided sufficient safeguards of reliability.”
In Re Eh, 823 N.E.2d 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 11× “Testimony at the Section 115-10 Hearing Prior to trial, the State requested a hearing pursuant to section 115-10 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2000)) [2] , in order to determine whether the statements made by K.”
People v. Caffey, 792 N.E.2d 1163 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 3× “The court also found that, except for *1199 his denial that he took medication, Joshua's statements were also admissible under the common law spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule.”
People v. Johnson, 2016 IL App (4th) 150004 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 6× “¶2 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine, seeking to introduce evidence un- der the hearsay exception of section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2012)). Specifically, the State sought to introduce (1) a digital video-…”
People v. Miles, 815 N.E.2d 37 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 6× “2d at 199 ), it remains a part of the statutory exception to the hearsay rule (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1998); People v. Peck, 285 Ill.”
People v. Rolandis G., 902 N.E.2d 600 (Ill. 2008). · cites it 3× “, section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2002)), was unconstitutional "to the extent [it] permits the introduction of [testimonial] statements" in violation of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution (U.”
In Re Eh, 863 N.E.2d 231 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 4× “Justice FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion: In this case the appellate court found section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2004)) facially unconstitutional, without addressing the nonconstitutional grounds upon…”
In re Brandon P., 2013 IL App (4th) 111022 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “’s hearsay statements to police under section 115-10 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Procedure Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2010)) because they were “unreliable” and (b) finding that statements M.”
Show all 290 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(a) — 30 cases
People v. Hayden, 2018 IL App (4th) 160035 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
People v. Reed, 838 N.E.2d 328 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “'s out-of-court statements to her mother and the police would be admissible at trial under the statutory exception to the hearsay rule in section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2002)). At trial, the State called L.”
People v. Johnson, 2016 IL App (4th) 150004 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “¶2 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine, seeking to introduce evidence un- der the hearsay exception of section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2012)). Specifically, the State sought to introduce (1) a digital video-…”
People v. Foster, 2020 IL App (2d) 170683 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Garcia, 2012 IL App (1st) 103590 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(a)(1) — 10 cases
People v. Hayden, 2018 IL App (4th) 160035 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
People v. Orengo, 2012 IL App (1st) 111071 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
People v. Rottau, 2017 IL App (5th) 150046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
People v. Rottau, 2017 IL App (5th) 150046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
People v. Santa Maria, 2023 IL App (1st) 191607-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(a)(2) — 22 cases
People v. Bowen, 699 N.E.2d 577 (Ill. 1998). “725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1994). A hearing was held pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, after which the court determined that the time, content and circumstances of the videotape provided sufficient safeguards of reliability.”
People v. Caffey, 792 N.E.2d 1163 (Ill. 2001). “The court also found that, except for *1199 his denial that he took medication, Joshua's statements were also admissible under the common law spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule.”
People v. Moss, 792 N.E.2d 1217 (Ill. 2001).
People v. Williams, 739 N.E.2d 455 (Ill. 2000). “Prior to trial, the State filed a petition seeking the admission of Joshua's statements under section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1994)). The State also offered the statements under the excited utterance or spontaneous declaration…”
People v. Stevens, 2018 IL App (4th) 160138 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(b) — 27 cases
People v. Stechly, 870 N.E.2d 333 (Ill. 2007). “As a result of the convictions, the circuit court sentenced defendant to six years' imprisonment.”
People v. Stull, 2014 IL App (4th) 120704 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
People v. Sharp, 825 N.E.2d 706 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “VI) and (b) section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2000)) and (2) he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's rebuttal argument.”
People v. Johnson, 2016 IL App (4th) 150004 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “¶2 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine, seeking to introduce evidence un- der the hearsay exception of section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2012)). Specifically, the State sought to introduce (1) a digital video-…”
People v. Kadow, 2021 IL App (4th) 190103 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(b)(1) — 52 cases
People v. Miles, 815 N.E.2d 37 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “2d at 199 ), it remains a part of the statutory exception to the hearsay rule (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1998); People v. Peck, 285 Ill.”
People v. Reed, 838 N.E.2d 328 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “'s out-of-court statements to her mother and the police would be admissible at trial under the statutory exception to the hearsay rule in section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2002)). At trial, the State called L.”
In Re Eh, 823 N.E.2d 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “Testimony at the Section 115-10 Hearing Prior to trial, the State requested a hearing pursuant to section 115-10 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2000)) [2] , in order to determine whether the statements made by K.”
People v. Bowen, 699 N.E.2d 577 (Ill. 1998). “725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1994). A hearing was held pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, after which the court determined that the time, content and circumstances of the videotape provided sufficient safeguards of reliability.”
People v. Sharp, 825 N.E.2d 706 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “VI) and (b) section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2000)) and (2) he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's rebuttal argument.”
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(b)(2) — 8 cases
People v. Reed, 838 N.E.2d 328 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “'s out-of-court statements to her mother and the police would be admissible at trial under the statutory exception to the hearsay rule in section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2002)). At trial, the State called L.”
People v. Lee, 2020 IL App (5th) 180570 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. Harris, 2023 IL App (5th) 210320-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
People v. Jacobs, 2020 IL App (2d) 190077-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Mateo, 2024 IL App (5th) 230329-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(b)(2)(A) — 10 cases
People v. Reed, 838 N.E.2d 328 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “'s out-of-court statements to her mother and the police would be admissible at trial under the statutory exception to the hearsay rule in section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2002)). At trial, the State called L.”
In Re Eh, 823 N.E.2d 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “Testimony at the Section 115-10 Hearing Prior to trial, the State requested a hearing pursuant to section 115-10 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 2000)) [2] , in order to determine whether the statements made by K.”
People v. Graves, 2021 IL App (5th) 200104 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. Currie, 2022 IL App (4th) 210598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
People v. Kennebrew, 2014 IL App (2d) 121169 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(b)(2)(B) — 7 cases
People v. Learn, 863 N.E.2d 1173 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
People v. Lee, 2020 IL App (5th) 180570 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Parrott, 2017 IL App (3d) 150545 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
People v. Lee, 2020 IL App (5th) 180570 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. Granados, 2024 IL App (3d) 220035-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(b)(3) — 8 cases
People v. Guerrero, 2018 IL App (2d) 160920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
People v. Rottau, 2017 IL App (5th) 150046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
In Re Eh, 883 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
People v. Rottau, 2017 IL App (5th) 150046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
People v. Guerrero, 2018 IL App (2d) 160920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(c) — 18 cases
People v. Caffey, 792 N.E.2d 1163 (Ill. 2001). “The court also found that, except for *1199 his denial that he took medication, Joshua's statements were also admissible under the common law spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule.”
People v. Williams, 739 N.E.2d 455 (Ill. 2000). “Prior to trial, the State filed a petition seeking the admission of Joshua's statements under section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1994)). The State also offered the statements under the excited utterance or spontaneous declaration…”
People v. Boling, 2014 IL App (4th) 120634 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
People v. Stevens, 2018 IL App (4th) 160138 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
People v. Marcos, 2013 IL App (1st) 111040 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(d) — 3 cases
People v. Howder, 2024 IL App (5th) 220275-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
People v. Drane, 2022 IL App (2d) 210198-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
People v. Ciancia-Fuchs, 2026 IL App (4th) 250056-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-10(d)(1) — 1 case
People v. Williams, 739 N.E.2d 455 (Ill. 2000). “Prior to trial, the State filed a petition seeking the admission of Joshua's statements under section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10 (West 1994)). The State also offered the statements under the excited utterance or spontaneous declaration…”
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.