[ Search ] [ Legislation ]
[ Home ] [ Back ] [ Bottom ]
| [ Engrossed ] |
91_HB2309
LRB9101728RCks
1 AN ACT to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 by
2 changing Section 115-6.
3 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
4 represented in the General Assembly:
5 Section 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is
6 amended by changing Section 115-6 as follows:
7 (725 ILCS 5/115-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 115-6)
8 Sec. 115-6. Admissibility of expert opinion; appointment
9 of psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. Evidence offered
10 by the defense consisting of expert opinion concerning the
11 defendant's criminal state of mind, intent, or ability to
12 form criminal intent is not admissible in any criminal trial
13 unless If the defendant has given notice that he or she may
14 rely upon the defense of insanity as defined in Section 6-2
15 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the defendant indicates that
16 he or she intends to plead guilty but mentally ill or that he
17 or she may rely on the defense of intoxicated or drugged
18 condition as defined in Section 6-3 of the Criminal Code of
19 1961. If the notice is given or if the facts and
20 circumstances of the case justify a reasonable belief that
21 the aforesaid defenses may be raised, the Court shall, on
22 motion of the State, order the defendant to submit to
23 examination by at least one clinical psychologist or
24 psychiatrist, to be named by the prosecuting attorney. The
25 Court shall also order the defendant to submit to an
26 examination by one neurologist, one clinical psychologist and
27 one electroencephalographer to be named by the prosecuting
28 attorney if the State asks for one or more of such additional
29 examinations. The Court may order additional examinations if
30 the Court finds that additional examinations by additional
31 experts will be of substantial value in the determination of
-2- LRB9101728RCks
1 issues of insanity or drugged conditions. The reports of such
2 experts shall be made available to the defense. Any
3 statements made by defendant to such experts shall not be
4 admissible against the defendant unless he raises the defense
5 of insanity or the defense of drugged condition, in which
6 case they shall be admissible only on the issue of whether he
7 was insane or drugged. The refusal of the defendant to
8 complete cooperate in such examinations shall not
9 automatically preclude the raising of the aforesaid defenses
10 but shall preclude the defendant from offering expert
11 evidence or testimony tending to support such defenses if the
12 expert evidence or testimony is based upon the expert's
13 examination of the defendant. If the Court, after a hearing,
14 determines to its satisfaction that the defendant's failure
15 to complete the examination refusal to cooperate was
16 unreasonable it may, in its sound discretion, bar any or all
17 evidence upon the defense asserted.
18 (Source: P.A. 82-553.)