ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/115-5 (2026)

Business records as evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/115-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 115-5)
    Sec. 115-5. Business records as evidence.
    (a) Any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, shall be admissible as evidence of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event, if made in regular course of any business, and if it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event or within a reasonable time thereafter.
    All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but such circumstances shall not affect its admissibility.
    The term "business," as used in this Section, includes business, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind.
    (b) If any business, institution, member of a profession or calling, or any department or agency of government, in the regular course of business or activity has kept or recorded any memorandum, writing, entry, print, representation or combination thereof, of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, and in the regular course of business has caused any or all of the same to be recorded, copied, or reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, micro-card, miniature photographic, optical imaging, or other process which accurately reproduces or forms a medium for so reproducing the original, the original may be destroyed in the regular course of business unless its preservation is required by law. Such reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any proceeding whether the original is in existence or not and an enlargement or facsimile of such reproduction is likewise admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of court. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement, or facsimile does not preclude admission of the original. This Section shall not be construed to exclude from evidence any document or copy thereof which is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence.
    (c) No writing or record made in the regular course of any business shall become admissible as evidence by the application of this Section if:
        (1) Such writing or record has been made by anyone in
    
the regular course of any form of hospital or medical business; or
        (2) Such writing or record has been made by anyone
    
during an investigation of an alleged offense or during any investigation relating to pending or anticipated litigation of any kind, except during a hearing to revoke a sentence of probation or conditional discharge or an order of court supervision that is based on a technical violation of a sentencing order when the hearing involves a probationer or defendant who has transferred or moved from the county having jurisdiction over the original charge or sentence. For the purposes of this subsection (c), "technical violation" means a breach of a sentencing order but does not include an allegation of a subsequent criminal act asserted in a formal criminal charge.
    (d) Upon request of the moving party and with reasonable notice given to the opposing party, in a criminal prosecution in which the defendant is accused of an offense under Article 16 or 17 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, the court may, after a hearing, for good cause and upon appropriate safeguards, permit live foundational testimony business records as evidence, subject to cross-examination, in open court by means of a contemporaneous audio and video transmission from outside of this State.
(Source: P.A. 98-579, eff. 1-1-14.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: People v. Russell, 895 N.E.2d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Russell, 895 N.E.2d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 4× “However, with exceptions that are not applicable to the present case, "[n]o writing or record made in the regular course of any business shall become admissible as evidence by the application of [section 115-5] if * * * such writing or record has been made by anyone during an…”
People v. Patterson, 735 N.E.2d 616 (Ill. 2000). “Consequently, we are unable to conclude that, even if this proffer had been presented to the trial court, a reasonable probability exists that the court would have either reopened the hearing or suppressed defendant's statements.”
People v. Little, 2021 IL App (1st) 181984 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “¶ 88 The State alternatively contends that the records were properly admissible as business records under section 115-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2018)). Having found no error in the trial court’s admission of the recordings pursuant…”
In Re Ab, 719 N.E.2d 348 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 3× “" Over respondent's objection that it did not qualify as a business record, the trial court admitted the service plan into evidence pursuant to section 115-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code of Criminal Procedure) (725 ILCS 5/115-5 (West 1996)). Roche was then…”
People v. Sangster, 2014 IL App (1st) 113457 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2010). Having found no error in the trial court’s admission of the recording under the silent witness theory, we decline the State’s invitation to address this alternate argument.”
People v. Smith, 2012 IL App (1st) 102354 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “See 725 ILCS 5/115-5(c)(2) (West 2010) (police reports are not business records).”
People v. McClanahan, 729 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. 2000). “An exception to the business records hearsay exception are those writings or records that have "been made by anyone during an investigation of an alleged offense or during any investigation relating to pending or anticipated litigation of any kind.”
People v. Williams, 895 N.E.2d 961 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “Defendant briefly argues that the State could not establish a chain of custody based upon the shipping manifests because they were inadmissible business records produced for purposes of litigation in violation of section 115-5(c)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963…”
People v. Eagletail, 2014 IL App (1st) 130252 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “”); see 725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2010) (“All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but such circumstances shall not affect its admissibility.”
People v. Viramontes, 2017 IL App (1st) 142085 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2012). ¶ 77 Finally, defendant challenges the trial court’s decision to limit the disclosure of Cruz’s mental health records.”
People v. Deroo, 2020 IL App (3d) 170163 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “See 725 ILCS 5/115-5(c) (West 2016). However, as the appellate court recognized in Hutchison, although medical records cannot normally be admitted as business records in criminal cases, through section 11-501.”
People v. Ullrich, 767 N.E.2d 411 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “The State cites 725 ILCS 5/115-5 (West 2000), a provision of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure inapplicable to a civil hearing.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) — 21 cases
People v. Russell, 895 N.E.2d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “However, with exceptions that are not applicable to the present case, "[n]o writing or record made in the regular course of any business shall become admissible as evidence by the application of [section 115-5] if * * * such writing or record has been made by anyone during an…”
People v. Little, 2021 IL App (1st) 181984 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “¶ 88 The State alternatively contends that the records were properly admissible as business records under section 115-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2018)). Having found no error in the trial court’s admission of the recordings pursuant…”
People v. Sangster, 2014 IL App (1st) 113457 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2010). Having found no error in the trial court’s admission of the recording under the silent witness theory, we decline the State’s invitation to address this alternate argument.”
People v. Eagletail, 2014 IL App (1st) 130252 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “”); see 725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2010) (“All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but such circumstances shall not affect its admissibility.”
People v. Viramontes, 2017 IL App (1st) 142085 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “725 ILCS 5/115-5(a) (West 2012). ¶ 77 Finally, defendant challenges the trial court’s decision to limit the disclosure of Cruz’s mental health records.”
— 725 ILCS 5/115-5(c) — 2 cases
People v. Deroo, 2020 IL App (3d) 170163 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “See 725 ILCS 5/115-5(c) (West 2016). However, as the appellate court recognized in Hutchison, although medical records cannot normally be admitted as business records in criminal cases, through section 11-501.”
People v. Virgin (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-5(c)(1) — 3 cases
People v. Hutchinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 102332 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
People v. Hutchinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 102332 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
People v. Sykes (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
— 725 ILCS 5/115-5(c)(2) — 17 cases
People v. Patterson, 735 N.E.2d 616 (Ill. 2000). “Consequently, we are unable to conclude that, even if this proffer had been presented to the trial court, a reasonable probability exists that the court would have either reopened the hearing or suppressed defendant's statements.”
People v. Smith, 2012 IL App (1st) 102354 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “See 725 ILCS 5/115-5(c)(2) (West 2010) (police reports are not business records).”
People v. McClanahan, 729 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. 2000). “An exception to the business records hearsay exception are those writings or records that have "been made by anyone during an investigation of an alleged offense or during any investigation relating to pending or anticipated litigation of any kind.”
People v. Williams, 895 N.E.2d 961 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “Defendant briefly argues that the State could not establish a chain of custody based upon the shipping manifests because they were inadmissible business records produced for purposes of litigation in violation of section 115-5(c)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963…”
People v. Cousins, 2023 IL App (1st) 230234 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
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.