Defendant Denied Pretrial Release on Sexual Assault Charges
The Fifth District affirmed continued detention after finding the trial court properly determined that release conditions could not mitigate the alleged threat to the victim and community.
In People v. Long, 2023 IL App (5th) 230881, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court considered whether a trial court properly continued the pretrial detention of a defendant charged with two counts of criminal sexual assault. The appellate court affirmed the order requiring the defendant to remain detained while awaiting trial.
The case arose during Illinois’ transition to its new pretrial-release system. The defendant had originally been charged and placed on a $125,000 cash bond in June 2022, more than a year before the Illinois pretrial-release provisions took effect. In September 2023, the State filed a petition seeking to deny pretrial release under section 110-6.1 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure.
Quick Answer
The Fifth District affirmed the defendant’s continued detention. The appellate court’s review was limited to the September 25, 2023 detention-review hearing because the defendant had not appealed the original September 18 detention order. The court concluded that the trial judge properly found, by clear and convincing evidence, that continued detention was necessary to avoid a specific real and present threat to the safety of specific persons and that the decision was not an abuse of discretion.
The Criminal Charges Against Skyler Long
Skyler P. Long was charged in Coles County with two counts of criminal sexual assault. Count I alleged that he committed criminal sexual assault by placing his finger in the vagina of the complainant through the use of force or threat of force, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(1).
Count II alleged criminal sexual assault based on the allegation that the complainant was unable to give knowing consent because of her age and/or intoxication, under 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(2). Both charges were Class 1 felonies.
These allegations were contested criminal charges and had not been resolved by a trial at the time of the appellate decision. The appellate case concerned pretrial detention rather than whether Long was ultimately guilty of the charged offenses.
The Original $125,000 Bond
Long was arrested and taken into custody after the charges were filed. At a June 27, 2022 bond hearing, the trial court set a cash bond of $125,000, with 10 percent to apply.
The court also imposed additional conditions before Long could be released. He was required to submit to a substance abuse evaluation, undergo screening for participation in the pretrial services program, and refrain from contact with the victim or her residence.
$125,000 Bond
The trial court originally set a cash bond of $125,000, with 10 percent to apply.
Release Conditions
The defendant was subject to substance-abuse evaluation and pretrial-services screening requirements.
No Contact
The court ordered Long to have no contact with the alleged victim or her residence.
The State Sought Pretrial Detention in September 2023
On September 14, 2023, the State filed a verified petition seeking to deny Long pretrial release under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1.
The State alleged that Long was charged with a qualifying offense and that he posed a real and present threat to the safety of people or the community. According to the State’s proffer, the alleged victim was a minor family member and Long also had a pending case involving possession of child pornography.
The State further argued that no conditions of pretrial release could adequately mitigate the alleged threat, including conditions such as electronic monitoring.
A Note About the September 14 Filing
The September 14 petition was filed before September 18, 2023, the effective date established by the Illinois Supreme Court for the pretrial-release provisions at issue. The appellate opinion specifically noted that the filing was premature. The trial court proceeded with the detention hearing after September 18.
The September 18 Pretrial Detention Hearing
The trial court conducted a pretrial-release hearing on September 18, 2023. Long did not object to the timeliness of the State’s petition and agreed to proceed with the hearing.
During the hearing, the State presented information concerning the allegations and argued that Long presented a real and present threat to the alleged victim, other minor females, and the community. The State also referenced evidence it said corroborated the victim’s account and the pending child-pornography case.
Defense counsel disputed the State’s allegations concerning the images found on Long’s phone and argued that someone else had downloaded them. Counsel also maintained that the victim was not afraid of Long and argued that less restrictive conditions could address any safety concerns.
Defense Position
Defense counsel argued that Long did not present a threat to the victim and that release conditions could address the State’s concerns.
State’s Position
Prosecutors argued that Long posed a real and present threat to the victim and other members of the community.
Trial Court Ruling
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that a qualifying offense had been established, that a real and present threat existed, and that no conditions could mitigate that threat.
The Defense Later Asked for Release Again
On September 25, 2023, the trial court conducted a detention-review hearing. Defense counsel again argued that Long did not pose a threat to the alleged victim and relied on a letter from the victim expressing that she did not view Long as a threat and would be comfortable with him temporarily being released on bond.
Counsel also presented a letter from the victim’s father stating that he did not believe Long would pose a threat to the victim and that he and the victim would have no contact with Long if he were released.
The State did not present new information at the hearing but argued that the circumstances underlying the original detention order remained unchanged. The State maintained that Long continued to pose a real and present threat to the victim and community and that no combination of release conditions could mitigate that threat.
Why the Letters Did Not Change the Result
The trial court considered the letters but found that they expressed the beliefs and opinions of the writers rather than changing the underlying facts presented at the original detention hearing. The court concluded that there had been no showing that Long no longer posed a real and present threat or that release conditions could mitigate that threat.
The Appellate Court Reviewed Continued Detention
Long appealed the September 25 order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h). The Fifth District explained that his appeal was limited to the trial court’s determination that continued detention was necessary under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5).
The reason for that limited review was important. Long had not appealed the original September 18 detention order. The appellate court therefore held that any challenge to the propriety of the original detention order had been forfeited.
Instead, the court considered whether the trial judge properly determined at the September 25 review hearing that continued detention remained necessary.
Review of Continued Detention
Under section 110-6.1(i-5), at each subsequent appearance of a detained defendant, the judge must find that continued detention is necessary to avoid a real and present threat to the safety of a person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case, or to prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution.
The Fifth District Affirmed the Detention Order
The appellate court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court’s continued-detention decision. Under that standard, a trial court’s decision will not be overturned merely because another result could have been reached; the appellate court examines whether the decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.
The Fifth District concluded that the trial court had considered the evidence and arguments presented at the September 25 hearing. The victim’s letter had already been presented during the original detention hearing, and the letter from the victim’s father did not change the underlying facts considered by the trial court.
The appellate court found that there was no showing that Long no longer posed a real and present threat to the victim or community or that a combination of release conditions could mitigate that threat. The court therefore held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in ordering continued detention.
Appellate Result
The Fifth District upheld the trial court’s September 25, 2023 order of continued detention.
Statutory Review
The appellate court evaluated whether continued detention remained necessary under the Illinois pretrial-detention statute.
Understanding Continued Detention Under Illinois Law
Illinois’ current pretrial-release system permits detention only in statutorily limited circumstances. Under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, a court may deny pretrial release for certain qualifying offenses when the statutory requirements are established.
The statute also requires a court to address continued detention at later appearances. Under section 110-6.1(i-5), the court must determine whether continued detention remains necessary to avoid a real and present threat to the safety of a person or persons or the community, based on specific articulable facts, or to prevent willful flight from prosecution.
Qualifying Offense
The charge must fall within one of the categories for which Illinois law permits the State to seek detention.
Real and Present Threat
The State must establish the statutory basis for claiming that release would present a real and present threat to a person or the community.
Specific Facts
The court must consider specific articulable facts supporting the continued-detention determination.
Release Conditions
The court must consider whether conditions of release could sufficiently mitigate the alleged threat.
A Key Point About People v. Long
People v. Long, 2023 IL App (5th) 230881 was a decision about continued detention, not a final determination of guilt or innocence. The appellate court specifically limited its review to the September 25 detention-review order.
The court did not revisit the initial September 18 detention decision because Long had not appealed that order. Instead, the Fifth District considered whether the trial court properly determined that continued detention remained necessary at the later review hearing.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the trial court’s continued-detention determination was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.
Talk to a Champaign, IL Criminal Defense Attorney Today
Pretrial detention can have a major impact on a criminal case, particularly when the charges are serious and the State seeks to prevent a defendant from being released while the case is pending. Illinois law establishes specific requirements governing detention petitions, hearings, release conditions, and continued detention.
Patel Law, PC represents defendants who are facing criminal charges, including allegations involving sexual offenses. Our Champaign, IL criminal defense attorneys can review the circumstances of your case and explain the pretrial-release and detention issues that may apply.
Contact Patel Law, PC to schedule a consultation regarding your Illinois criminal case.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
People v. Long, 2023 IL App (5th) 230881 — Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 — Denial of Pretrial Release
720 ILCS 5/11-1.20 — Criminal Sexual Assault
Illinois Courts — Supreme Court Resources
