Defendant Denied Pretrial Release on Sexual Assault Charges

In the case of People v. Long, the defendant was charged with two counts of criminal sexual assault after he allegedly forced his finger into the vagina of the complainant. Count 1 alleged that the defendant committed criminal sexual assault after penetrating the vagina of the complainant. Count 2 alleged the same but added that the complainant was unable to give knowing consent based on her age and/or level of intoxication at the time of the alleged penetration. The defendant was arrested and then taken into custody.

A bond hearing was held on June 27, 2022, prior to the passage of the SAFE-T Act. The trial court set the bond amount at $125,000. The court also imposed additional conditions for the defendant’s pretrial release. The defendant was to submit to a substance abuse evaluation prior to his release from custody and a screening for participation in the pretrial services program. He was ordered to refrain from any contact with the victim or her place of residence.

On September 14, 2023, the State filed a motion to deny pretrial release to the defendant. The State argued that the defendant was charged with criminal sexual assault, which is a qualifying offense to be denied release under the SAFE-T Act. The State further alleged that the defendant posed a significant threat to members of the community if he were to be released because he committed criminal sexual assault against a minor member of his family and was found in possession of several images of child pornography.

On September 18, 2023, the court held a hearing concerning the defendant’s pretrial release. The State noted that the defendant had committed a qualifying offense and that he was, in fact, a danger to the community. Further, that danger could not be mitigated by conditions placed on the defendant, such as an electronic monitoring device. The court denied the defendant’s motion for pretrial release.

The defense moves again to get the defendant released 

The defense argued that the defendant was not a threat to the complainant and that the pornographic images found on his phone were downloaded by someone else, and not himself. In supporting this argument, the defense presented a letter written by the complainant that seemed to indicate that she was not afraid that the defendant would harm her again. The complainant’s father also provided evidence that he was not concerned that the defendant would harm the child again.

The State objected to the defendant’s request. Without proferring any new evidence, the State maintained that the defendant was a threat to both the complainant and other members of the community. They further argued that no condition or conditions of pretrial release could mitigate the defendant’s threat to the community. In response, the court sided with the State and ordered the continued incarceration of the defendant while he awaited trial.

Talk to a Champaign, IL Criminal Defense Attorney Today 

The Champaign, IL criminal defense attorneys at Patel Law, PC represent the interests of defendants who are being accused of sexual offenses. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin preparing your defense immediately.

Source:

ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/12251096-4421-4b5a-9ed8-1da2218b239d/People%20v.%20Long,%202023%20IL%20App%20(5th)%20230881.pdf