ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/115-3 (2026)

Trial by the Court

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/115-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 115-3)
    Sec. 115-3. Trial by the Court.
    (a) A trial shall be conducted in the presence of the defendant unless he waives the right to be present.
    (b) Upon conclusion of the trial the court shall enter a general finding, except that, when the affirmative defense of insanity has been presented during the trial and acquittal is based solely upon the defense of insanity, the court shall enter a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. In the event of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, a hearing shall be held pursuant to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code to determine whether the defendant is subject to involuntary admission.
    (c) When the defendant has asserted a defense of insanity, the court may find the defendant guilty but mentally ill if, after hearing all of the evidence, the court finds that:
        (1) the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt
    
that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged; and
        (2) the defendant has failed to prove his insanity as
    
required in subsection (b) of Section 3-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 and subsections (a), (b) and (e) of Section 6-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012; and
        (3) the defendant has proven by a preponderance of
    
the evidence that he was mentally ill, as defined in subsections (c) and (d) of Section 6-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 at the time of the offense.
(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 5× “725 ILCS 5/115-3 ( West 2002 ). Dr. Seltzberg's opinion testimony that the defendant was insane at the time of the murder was unrebutted, therefore, the defendant proved his insanity with his medical records and with Dr.”
People v. Urdiales, 871 N.E.2d 669 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 2× “(d) For purposes of this Section, `mental illness' or `mentally ill' means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person's judgment, but not to the extent that he is…”
People v. Harrison, 877 N.E.2d 432 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 3× “In addition, the Code provides for a discharge hearing to determine the sufficiency of the evidence against a person involuntarily committed for mental-health treatment prior to trial who is unlikely to be fit to stand trial within one year.”
People v. Kando, 921 N.E.2d 1166 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 720 ILCS 5/6-2(c) (West 2004); see also 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c) (West 2002).8 The defense of insanity is an affirmative one, which defendant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence.”
People v. Wood, 2014 IL App (1st) 121408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 5/115-3(c)(1)-(3) (West 2010). - 11 - ¶ 63 Although this court may dispose of an ineffective assistance claim without considering whether counsel’s performance was deficient if a defendant fails to establish prejudice, we believe that Wood has established prejudice here.”
People v. Smith, 2017 IL App (1st) 143728 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c) (West 2014). Similarly, in a jury trial where the defendant has raised the defense of insanity, “the court, where warranted by the evidence, shall also provide the jury with a special verdict form of guilty but mentally ill, as to each offense charged and…”
People v. Smith, 2017 IL App (1st) 143728 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “Similarly, in a jury trial where the defendant has raised the defense of insanity, "the court, where warranted by the evidence, shall also provide the jury with a special verdict form of guilty but mentally ill, as to each offense charged and shall separately instruct the jury…”
People v. Wood, 2014 IL App (1st) 121408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “725 ILCS 5/115-3(c)(1)-(3) (West 2010). ¶ 63 Although this court may dispose of an ineffective assistance claim without considering whether counsel's performance was deficient if a defendant fails to establish prejudice, we - 19 - No.”
In re G.A.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 160702 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “, 725 ILCS 5/115-3(b) (West 2012) (“Upon conclusion of the trial the court shall enter a general finding ***.”
People v. Baldwin, 2021 IL App (1st) 190363-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “See 720 ILCS 5/6- 2(c) (West 2012) (“A person who, at the time of the commission of a criminal offense, was not insane but was suffering from a mental illness, is not relieved of criminal responsibility for his conduct and may be found guilty but mentally ill.”). However, in…”
People v. Jackson, 2015 IL App (1st) 123695 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “See 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c) (West 2012). The State further argues that collateral estoppel is not appropriate because the adjudication of defendant’s mental illness at his initial trial was only an evidentiary fact, not an ultimate fact amenable to the application of the doctrine of…”
In re G.A.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 160702 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “, 725 ILCS 5/115-3(b) (West 2012) (“Upon conclusion of the trial the court shall enter a general finding ***.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/115-3(b) — 6 cases
People v. Harrison, 877 N.E.2d 432 (Ill. 2007). “In addition, the Code provides for a discharge hearing to determine the sufficiency of the evidence against a person involuntarily committed for mental-health treatment prior to trial who is unlikely to be fit to stand trial within one year.”
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “725 ILCS 5/115-3 ( West 2002 ). Dr. Seltzberg's opinion testimony that the defendant was insane at the time of the murder was unrebutted, therefore, the defendant proved his insanity with his medical records and with Dr.”
In re G.A.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 160702 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “, 725 ILCS 5/115-3(b) (West 2012) (“Upon conclusion of the trial the court shall enter a general finding ***.”
In re G.A.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 160702 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “, 725 ILCS 5/115-3(b) (West 2012) (“Upon conclusion of the trial the court shall enter a general finding ***.”
People v. Beeler, 2012 IL App (4th) 110217 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c) — 10 cases
People v. McCullum, 897 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “725 ILCS 5/115-3 ( West 2002 ). Dr. Seltzberg's opinion testimony that the defendant was insane at the time of the murder was unrebutted, therefore, the defendant proved his insanity with his medical records and with Dr.”
People v. Kando, 921 N.E.2d 1166 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “” 720 ILCS 5/6-2(c) (West 2004); see also 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c) (West 2002).8 The defense of insanity is an affirmative one, which defendant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence.”
People v. Smith, 2017 IL App (1st) 143728 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c) (West 2014). Similarly, in a jury trial where the defendant has raised the defense of insanity, “the court, where warranted by the evidence, shall also provide the jury with a special verdict form of guilty but mentally ill, as to each offense charged and…”
People v. Smith, 2017 IL App (1st) 143728 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “Similarly, in a jury trial where the defendant has raised the defense of insanity, "the court, where warranted by the evidence, shall also provide the jury with a special verdict form of guilty but mentally ill, as to each offense charged and shall separately instruct the jury…”
People v. Jackson, 2015 IL App (1st) 123695 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “See 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c) (West 2012). The State further argues that collateral estoppel is not appropriate because the adjudication of defendant’s mental illness at his initial trial was only an evidentiary fact, not an ultimate fact amenable to the application of the doctrine of…”
— 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c)(1) — 3 cases
People v. Wood, 2014 IL App (1st) 121408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “725 ILCS 5/115-3(c)(1)-(3) (West 2010). - 11 - ¶ 63 Although this court may dispose of an ineffective assistance claim without considering whether counsel’s performance was deficient if a defendant fails to establish prejudice, we believe that Wood has established prejudice here.”
People v. Wood, 2014 IL App (1st) 121408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “725 ILCS 5/115-3(c)(1)-(3) (West 2010). ¶ 63 Although this court may dispose of an ineffective assistance claim without considering whether counsel's performance was deficient if a defendant fails to establish prejudice, we - 19 - No.”
People v. Baldwin, 2021 IL App (1st) 190363-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “See 720 ILCS 5/6- 2(c) (West 2012) (“A person who, at the time of the commission of a criminal offense, was not insane but was suffering from a mental illness, is not relieved of criminal responsibility for his conduct and may be found guilty but mentally ill.”). However, in…”
— 725 ILCS 5/115-3(c)(3) — 1 case
People v. Urdiales, 871 N.E.2d 669 (Ill. 2007). “(d) For purposes of this Section, `mental illness' or `mentally ill' means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person's judgment, but not to the extent that he is…”
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.