ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/116-2 (2026)

Motion in arrest of judgment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/116-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 116-2)
    Sec. 116-2. Motion in arrest of judgment. (a) A written motion in arrest of judgment shall be filed by the defendant within 30 days following the entry of a verdict or finding of guilty. Reasonable notice of the motion shall be served upon the State.
    (b) The court shall grant the motion when:
    (1) The indictment, information or complaint does not charge an offense, or
    (2) The court is without jurisdiction of the cause.
    (c) A motion in arrest of judgment attacking the indictment, information, or complaint on the ground that it does not charge an offense shall be denied if the indictment, information or complaint apprised the accused of the precise offense charged with sufficient specificity to prepare his defense and allow pleading a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecution out of the same conduct.
(Source: P.A. 86-391.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: People v. Abdullah, 2019 IL 123492 (Ill. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Abdullah, 2019 IL 123492 (Ill. 2019). “Article 116, titled “Post-Trial Motions,” includes defense motions seeking a new trial (725 ILCS 5/116-1 (West 2004)), defense motions in arrest of judgment (725 ILCS 5/116-2 (West 2004)), defense motions to vacate prostitution convictions for sex trafficking victims (725 ILCS…”
People v. Woodard, 677 N.E.2d 935 (Ill. 1997). “See 725 ILCS 5/122-1 (West 1994) (post-conviction, generally, must be filed within three years from date of conviction); 725 ILCS 5/116-1(b) (West 1994) (written motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days from entry of judgment); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 1994) (a timely…”
People v. Grever, 819 N.E.2d 6 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the charges alleged in counts I through VI in a posttrial motion in arrest of judgment, asserting that counts I through VI do not charge offenses punishable by the criminal law of the State of Illinois.”
In re Raheem M., 2013 IL App (4th) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2012). This language tracks the standard courts of review use when a defendant attacks the sufficiency of a charging instrument for the first time on appeal.”
People v. Okoro, 2022 IL App (1st) 201254 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “2d 23, 29 (1976); 725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2018). Consequently, when, as here, the indictment or information is challenged for the first time on appeal, our review is limited to determining whether the indictment apprised defendant of the precise offense charged with sufficient…”
People v. LEEZER, 903 N.E.2d 726 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “amounted to a motion in arrest of judgment (725 ILCS 5/116-2 (West 2006)). Defendant's motion attacked the sufficiency of the charge in the information, not the sufficiency of the evidence.”
People v. Mingo, 936 N.E.2d 1156 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “, 725 ILCS 5/116-1(b) (West 2008) (motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days following the verdict); 725 ILCS 5/116-2(a) (West 2008) (motion in arrest of judgment must be filed within 30 days following the finding or verdict of guilty); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 2008)…”
People v. Smith, 2012 IL App (4th) 100901 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “38, ¶ 116-2(c) (now 725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2010)). ¶ 114 In Benitez, the defendant attacked the second indictment in his posttrial motion (Benitez, 169 Ill.”
People v. Abdullah, 2019 IL 123492 (Ill. 2021). “Article 116, titled “Post-Trial Motions,” includes defense motions seeking a new trial (725 ILCS 5/116-1 (West 2004)), defense motions in arrest of judgment (725 ILCS 5/116-2 (West 2004)), defense motions to vacate prostitution convictions for sex trafficking victims (725 ILCS…”
People v. Gonzalez, 2022 IL App (2d) 190831-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 5/116-2 (West 2018). We begin with defendant’s first contention.”
People v. Leezer (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “amounted to a motion in arrest of judgment (725 ILCS 5/116-2 (West 2006)). Defendant's motion attacked the sufficiency of the charge in the information, not the sufficiency of the evidence.”
People v. Herman (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “II Next, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his posttrial motion in arrest of judgment (pursuant to section 116-2(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2002))) because the indictment did not charge that the firefighter was…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/116-2(a) — 2 cases
People v. Woodard, 677 N.E.2d 935 (Ill. 1997). “See 725 ILCS 5/122-1 (West 1994) (post-conviction, generally, must be filed within three years from date of conviction); 725 ILCS 5/116-1(b) (West 1994) (written motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days from entry of judgment); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 1994) (a timely…”
People v. Mingo, 936 N.E.2d 1156 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “, 725 ILCS 5/116-1(b) (West 2008) (motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days following the verdict); 725 ILCS 5/116-2(a) (West 2008) (motion in arrest of judgment must be filed within 30 days following the finding or verdict of guilty); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(c) (West 2008)…”
— 725 ILCS 5/116-2(b)(1) — 1 case
People v. Grever, 819 N.E.2d 6 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the charges alleged in counts I through VI in a posttrial motion in arrest of judgment, asserting that counts I through VI do not charge offenses punishable by the criminal law of the State of Illinois.”
— 725 ILCS 5/116-2(b)(2) — 1 case
People v. Woodson, 2022 IL App (4th) 200558-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
— 725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) — 5 cases
In re Raheem M., 2013 IL App (4th) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2012). This language tracks the standard courts of review use when a defendant attacks the sufficiency of a charging instrument for the first time on appeal.”
People v. Okoro, 2022 IL App (1st) 201254 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “2d 23, 29 (1976); 725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2018). Consequently, when, as here, the indictment or information is challenged for the first time on appeal, our review is limited to determining whether the indictment apprised defendant of the precise offense charged with sufficient…”
People v. Smith, 2012 IL App (4th) 100901 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “38, ¶ 116-2(c) (now 725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2010)). ¶ 114 In Benitez, the defendant attacked the second indictment in his posttrial motion (Benitez, 169 Ill.”
People v. Herman (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “II Next, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his posttrial motion in arrest of judgment (pursuant to section 116-2(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/116-2(c) (West 2002))) because the indictment did not charge that the firefighter was…”
People v. Gonzalez, 2022 IL App (2d) 190831-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “725 ILCS 5/116-2 (West 2018). We begin with defendant’s first contention.”
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.