People v. Trottier

• Docket Number: 2-23-0317
• Decision Date: 08 December 2023
• Citation: People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, 2-23-0317 (Ill. App. Dec 08, 2023)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN TROTTIER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

1

2023 IL App (2d) 230317

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN TROTTIER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-23-0317

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

December 8, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of De Kalb County.No. 23-CF-519Honorable Philip Montgomery, Judge, Presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant: James E. Chadd, Carolyn R Klarquist, and Peter Sgro, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Attorneys for Appellee:Patrick Delfino and David J. Robinson of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE MULLENdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.Justices Hutchinson and Kennedy concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

MULLEN JUSTICE.

¶ 1Defendant, Steven Trottier, was charged in the circuit court of De Kalb County with three counts of possession of child pornography (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6)(West 2022)).The State filed a "Verified Petition to DenyDefendant Pretrial Release"(Petition) pursuant to section 1106.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963(Code)(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(West 2022)).Following a hearing, the trial court granted the State's Petition and entered a written order of pretrial detention.Defendant filed a timely appeal.For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On September 21, 2023, defendant was charged by complaint with three counts of possession of child pornography (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6)(West 2022)).Each count of the complaint alleged that defendant possessed an electronic video file of a prepubescent female child, whom defendant reasonably should have known to be under the age of 18, engaging in sexual conduct or penetration.

¶ 4 A synopsis of facts related to the charges against defendant was prepared by the De Kalb County Sheriff's Department(Department) and, as amended, provided in pertinent part as follows.In May 2023, the Department received from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children multiple Cyber Tipline reports of child pornography being downloaded from social media applications.The files were viewed by an investigator and were confirmed to be videos of child pornography.The Department's investigation indicated that the downloads were associated with defendant.The Department obtained search warrants for the social media applications involved, and three video files of child pornography were provided.Also provided were chat messages from defendant.In those messages, defendant stated that he is "supporting a family from the Phillippines [ sic ] now and going to have the two brothers move to live with me."Defendant noted that one of the brothers is 21 and the other is 11.Defendant remarked that it will be "great to have two naked young boys running around the house *** every day and night" and that the "sex will be great."An amended synopsis further noted that the names, addresses, and phone numbers for a family in the Philippines were found at defendant's residence.Also discovered at defendant's residence was a computer with picture and video files of "two boys who appear to be from the Phillipines [ sic ]," videos of "a young Phillipino [ sic ] man *** masturbating," and "a video file that appeared to have been created by [defendant] directed to the boys, being a 'a [ sic ] thank you for loving me' type of video."

¶ 5 A pretrial services bond report (Report) documented that, in 1995, defendant was convicted of the aggravated criminal sexual assault of a victim under 13 years of age, for which he was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment.The Report noted that defendant is no longer required to register as a sex offender but that he is still prohibited from participating in any programs or services exclusively directed towards children under 18 years of age; he is restricted from being within 500 feet of a school, school conveyance, or public park; and he is restricted from residing within 500 feet of a school, playground, daycare, or any facility offering programs or services exclusively directed for children.The Report further noted that pretrial services administered to defendant the revised Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (Assessment).The Assessment identified defendant's "risk of pretrial misconduct as 2 out of a possible score of 014."Based on statistical norms, "the [Assessment would estimate a 96% probability" that defendant would appear at all future court hearings and avoid new offenses.Pretrial services recommended release pending trial with the conditions that defendant be placed on pretrial supervision, that he not have any unsupervised contact with underage minors, and that he not reside in a home with underage minors.

¶ 6 On September 22, 2023, the State filed the Petition at issue.In the Petition, the State alleged that defendant was charged with an offense under article 11 of the Criminal Code of 2012(720 ILCS 5/art. 11(West 2022)), an enumerated offense under section 110-6.1(a)(5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(5)(West 2022)), and that defendant's pretrial release would pose a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person or persons or the community.The State also alleged that defendant has a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.

¶ 7The trial court held a detention hearing on the State's Petition the day it was filed.After argument by the attorneys, the court concluded that the State had not met its burden on the issue of willful flight.The court went on to note that it had previously found probable cause as it relates to the offenses charged and that it had reviewed the arrest warrant, the synopses of facts, and the Report.The court determined that the proof was evident and the presumption great that defendant committed the offenses charged.The court considered defendant's previous conviction of aggravated criminal sexual assault and mentioned the age of the victim "as less than 13," finding that this conviction evidenced a "previous history of violence, abusive or assaultive behavior."Citing the current charges and the prior offense, the court found that defendant had some psychological issues.The court also stated, based on the information in the synopses of facts, that "it appears as though the defendant was actively seeking to relocate persons to his home that he could then potentially abuse."The court determined that, considering the statements attributed to him, defendant posed a real and present danger to the community.Additionally, the court found that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any persons or the community.The court concluded that, "based on the specific and articulable facts of the case[,] *** the comments that are attributed to the defendant, the defendant's prior criminal history[,] and the facts and circumstances that give rise to the defendant's arrest,"defendant would be ordered detained.This appeal followed.

¶ 8 II.ANALYSIS

¶ 9 This appeal is brought pursuant to Public Act 101-652 § 10-255(eff Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act (Act).^[1]SeePub. Act 102-1104, § 70(eff. Jan. 1, 2023)(amending various provisions of the Act);Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52(lifting stay and setting effective date of Act as September 18, 2023).This court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution(Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(eff. Sept. 18, 2023).

¶ 10The Act amended the Code by abolishing traditional monetary bail in favor of pretrial release on personal recognizance or with conditions of release.725 ILCS 5/110-1.5, 110-2(a)(West 2022).In Illinois, all persons charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial release.725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e)(West 2022).Pretrial release is governed by article 110 of the Codeas amended by the Act. 725 ILCS 5/110-1 et seq.(West 2022).Under the Code, as amended, a defendant's pretrial release may be denied only in certain statutorily limited situations (qualifying offenses).725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022).For most of the qualifying offenses, upon filing a verified petition requesting denial of pretrial release, the State has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has committed a qualifying offense (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)(West 2022)), that the defendant's pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1)-(7), (e)(2)(West 2022)) or a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(8), (e)(3)(West 2022)), and that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community or prevent the defendant's willful flight from prosecution(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(3)(West 2022)).

¶ 11 In considering whether the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community i.e., making a determination of "dangerousness,"the trial court may consider evidence or testimony concerning factors that include, but are not limited to, (1) the nature and circumstances of any offense charged, including whether the offense was a crime of violence, involved a weapon, or was a sex offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the defendant's prior criminal history indicative of violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior and the defendant's psychological history; (3) the identity of any person to whom the defendant is believed to...