WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 3458

CRIM CD-AGG BAT-PEACE OFFICER

104th Regular Session Introduced by Kelly Cassidy and 2 co-sponsors

HB 3458 creates a narrow defense to aggravated battery for incidents where a peace officer responds to a person believed to be having a mental health episode and the person has doc

0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 3458

HB 3458 — CRIM CD‑AGG BAT‑PEACE OFFICER

Summary prepared: Illinois General Assembly (Introduced Feb. 18, 2025)

Purpose / Intent

HB 3458 amends the aggravated battery statute in the Criminal Code of 2012 (changing 720 ILCS 5/12-4 to 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05) to create a statutory defense to aggravated battery in a narrow set of cases involving interactions between peace officers and persons experiencing mental‑health episodes. The bill aims to protect officers from aggravated‑battery liability when they respond to persons who a reasonable officer could believe were having a mental health episode and those persons have documented mental illness and acted abruptly.

Key provisions

  • Inserts a new subsection (d‑1) into 720 ILCS 5/12‑3.05 (Aggravated Battery) providing:
    • "It is a defense to aggravated battery when the individual battered is a peace officer and the officer responded to an incident in which the officer interacted with a person whom a reasonable officer could believe was having a mental health episode and the person with whom the officer interacted has a documented mental illness and acted abruptly."
  • Leaves other elements and categories of aggravated battery (e.g., injury to children, elderly, use of firearms, certain victim statuses like teachers, nurses, utility workers, etc.) intact.
  • The defense is limited specifically to aggravated battery offenses; it does not, on its face, alter liability for other offenses (simple battery, assault, homicide, or other crimes).

Who would be affected

  • Defendants charged with aggravated battery where the alleged victim is a peace officer and the facts involve a mental‑health episode.
  • Prosecutors: charging decisions and proof strategies in cases involving interactions between officers and persons with documented mental illness.
  • Law enforcement: potential implications for use‑of‑force accountability and training when encountering individuals with mental illness.
  • Individuals with documented mental illness and civil‑liberties stakeholders (e.g., privacy and medical‑records issues may arise if mental‑health documentation is used in criminal defense).

Procedural status (selected actions)

  • Introduced by Rep. Lisa Davis: Feb. 18, 2025 (first reading).
  • Filed with Clerk: Feb. 7, 2025 (per bill header).
  • Cosponsors added: Rep. Kelly M. Cassidy and Rep. Marcus C. Evans, Jr. (Mar. 4, 2025).
  • Referred to Rules Committee; later to Trade, Workforce & Economic Development.
  • Committee hearings: Apr. 9 and Apr. 23, 2025 (substitute reported favorably Apr. 23).
  • Committee report filed and sent to Calendars: May 5–6, 2025.
  • Placed on General State Calendar: May 13, 2025.
  • Companion bill: SB 1652.

Considerations / potential impacts

  • The bill creates a defensive legal framework relying on three factual elements: (1) the victim is a peace officer, (2) a reasonable officer could believe the subject was experiencing a mental‑health episode, and (3) the subject has a documented mental illness and acted abruptly. The text does not define “documented mental illness,” “acted abruptly,” or specify the burden of proof or procedural mechanism for raising the defense — leaving open evidentiary and constitutional questions (e.g., access to medical records, standards for “reasonable officer,” and interaction with other charges).
  • Could reduce aggravated battery convictions in cases involving crisis responses, affecting prosecutorial practices and civil liability assessments; may also prompt changes in law‑enforcement training and incident documentation.

If you want, I can draft a one‑page explainer for prosecutors/defense attorneys describing elements to prove/oppose this defense and evidentiary considerations.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.