Matthew R. Leisten, Ogle County State’s Attorney’s Office, Oregon
815-732-1170 | E-mail Matthew R. Leisten
Illinois Supreme Court Holds State Is Not Required To Address Every Possible Pretrial Condition To Justify Detention
In People v. Mikolaitis, 2024 IL 130693, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the state is not required to specifically address why every conceivable condition or combination of pretrial conditions cannot apply to a defendant when arguing for a defendant’s pretrial detainment.
In Mikolaitis, the defendant was charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery after he allegedly stabbed a victim. The defendant told both his mother and girlfriend that he stabbed the victim and told his girlfriend that he picked up the victim, who was going to buy Perocet from him. The defendant pretended to look for his phone in the back seat and then opened the vehicle’s passenger door and stabbed the victim multiple times. The defendant was arrested after driving away from the scene. Police observed knife punctures on the passenger seat. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶4.
The defendant declined to participate in his pretrial risk assessment. His only criminal history consisted of a pending failure to notify of a damaged vehicle case. The defendant was 19 years old. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶¶5, 7.
During the detention hearing, the state argued that the defendant had admitted he stabbed the victim, posed a threat to the victim’s safety, and had access to a knife. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶6. The defense argued that the defendant was only 19 years old, had no criminal history, and was “previously diagnosed with depression, anxiety[,] and bipolar disorder” for which he had been prescribed antipsychotics. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶7. The defendant admitted that he was not currently taking his antipsychotic medicine. The defense asked for the defendant to be released on electronic monitoring. Id.
The trial court granted the state’s petition to detain, and the appellate court affirmed with one justice dissenting. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶¶8, 10, 12. A specially concurring justice specifically disagreed with the dissenting justice’s position that the state must argue and prove why each condition or combination of conditions under 725 ILCS 5/110-10(b) cannot mitigate the threat that the defendant posed to a particular victim. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶11.
The Supreme Court held that although the state has the burden of proof (to show clear and convincing evidence that establishes that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the threat posed by the defendant) under §110-6.1(e)(3), the state’s burden does not require it to specifically address every conceivable condition or combination of conditions and then argue whey each condition does not apply. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶20. The Supreme Court noted that there was no language in the statute that dictated what evidence or argument the state must present to meet its burden. Instead, the state must meet its burden and present evidence regarding the scenario of each case, such as the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, the risk assessment score, and other considerations known to the state at the time of the hearing. Id.
The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s position that the state cannot meet its burden by offering evidence under §110-5 (determining the amount of bail and conditions of release) in order to meet its burden under §110-6.1(e)(3) (eligibility for release) to “clearly and convincingly establish that no conditions can mitigate the safety threat posed by a defendant’s release.” 2024 IL 130693 at ¶21.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that trial courts are not prohibited from considering evidence that comes from other sources besides the state. Therefore, it makes sense that a trial court would consider all relevant evidence when determining whether the state has met its burden. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶22.
The Supreme Court concluded that the state presented evidence regarding the statutory factors to be considered in determining whether there were conditions of pretrial release, if any, that would reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant, the safety of any other person and the community, and compliance by the defendant. 2024 IL 130693 at ¶23. In the present case, that evidence consisted of the nature and circumstances of the offense, the weight of the evidence, and the seriousness of the threat posed by the defendant’s release. The state proved by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release could mitigate the safety threat that the defendant’s release posed to the victim based on the state’s argument that (1) the defendant committed a violent offense, (2) the victim was a specific person to whom the defendant posed a safety threat, (3) the defendant told others how the offense occurred, and (4) the defendant had access to a knife. Id.
For more information about criminal law, see CRIMINAL RECORDS: EXPUNGEMENT AND OTHER RELIEF (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.