Updating the database of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) is an ongoing process.
Recent laws may not yet be included in the ILCS database, but they are found on this site as Public
soon after they become law. For information concerning the relationship between statutes and Public Acts, refer to the
Because the statute database is maintained primarily for legislative drafting purposes,
statutory changes are sometimes included in the statute database before they take effect.
If the source note at the end of a Section of the statutes includes a Public Act that has
not yet taken effect, the version of the law that is currently in effect may have already
been removed from the database and you should refer to that Public Act to see the changes
made to the current law.
(725 ILCS 5/114-15)
(a) In a first degree murder case in which the State seeks the death
penalty as an appropriate sentence, any party may raise the issue of the
defendant's intellectual disabilities by motion. A defendant wishing to raise the
issue of his or her intellectual disabilities shall provide written notice to the
and the court as soon as the defendant reasonably believes such issue will be
(b) The issue of the defendant's intellectual disabilities shall be
determined in a pretrial hearing. The court shall be the fact finder on the
issue of the defendant's intellectual disabilities and shall determine the issue by a
preponderance of evidence in which the moving party has the burden of proof.
The court may appoint an expert in the field of intellectual disabilities. The defendant and the State may offer experts from the
field of intellectual disabilities. The court shall determine admissibility of
evidence and qualification as an expert.
(c) If after a plea of guilty to first degree murder, or a finding of guilty
of first degree murder in a bench trial, or a verdict of guilty for first
murder in a jury trial, or on a matter remanded from the Supreme Court for
sentencing for first degree murder, and the State seeks the death penalty as an
appropriate sentence, the defendant may raise the issue of defendant's intellectual disabilities not at eligibility but at aggravation and mitigation. The
and the State may offer experts from the field of intellectual disabilities. The
court shall determine admissibility of evidence and qualification as an expert.
(d) In determining whether the defendant is a person with an intellectual disability, the intellectual disability
must have manifested itself by the age of 18.
IQ tests and psychometric tests administered to the defendant
must be the kind and type recognized by experts in the field of intellectual disabilities. In order for the defendant to be considered a person with an intellectual disability, a
low IQ must be accompanied by
significant deficits in adaptive behavior in at least 2 of
following skill areas: communication, self-care, social or interpersonal
home living, self-direction, academics, health and safety, use of community
resources, and work.
intelligence quotient (IQ) of 75 or below is presumptive evidence of an intellectual disability.
(e) Evidence of an intellectual disability that did not result in disqualifying
the case as a capital case, may be introduced as evidence in mitigation
during a capital sentencing hearing. A failure of the court to determine that
the defendant is a person with an intellectual disability does not preclude the court during trial
from allowing evidence relating to mental disability should the court deem it
(f) If the court determines at a pretrial hearing or after remand that a
is a person with an intellectual disability, and the State does not appeal pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 604, the case shall no longer be considered a capital case and the
procedural guidelines established for capital cases shall no longer be
applicable to the defendant. In that case, the defendant shall be sentenced
under the sentencing provisions of Chapter V of the Unified Code of
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)