People v. Harder

2025 IL App (4th) 241313-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 4-24-1313
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (4th) 241313-U NOTICE This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is January 7, 2025 NOS. 4-24-1313, 4-24-1314 cons. Carla Bender not precedent except in the th limited circumstances allowed 4 District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Livingston County ROBERT J. HARDER, ) Nos. 24CF236 Defendant-Appellant. ) 24CF237 ) ) Honorable ) Jennifer Hartmann ) Bauknecht, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Zenoff and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant pretrial release.

¶2 Defendant, Robert J. Harder, appeals the circuit court’s order denying him pretrial

release under section 110-6.1(a)(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS

5/110-6.1(a)(5) (West 2022)), hereinafter as amended by Public Acts 101-652, § 10-255 and

102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On August 21, 2024, in Livingston County case No. 24-CF-236, the State charged

defendant with two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-

1.40(a)(1) (West 2020)). Count I asserts defendant committed the offense against a family member under the age of 13 “[o]n or about December 2022.” Count II asserts defendant

committed the offense against a different family member under the age of 13 “[o]n or about

December 25, 2021[,] through December 25, 2022.” In Livingston County case No. 24-CF-237,

defendant was charged with four counts of possession of child pornography, and the victim was

under the age of 13 (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6) (West 2022).

¶5 That same day, the State filed a verified petition to detain defendant based on

section 110-6.1(a)(5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(5) (West 2022)). The State asserted

defendant was charged with a detainable sexual offense and poses a real and present threat to the

safety of any person or persons or the community.

¶6 A hearing was held on probable cause and the State’s petition. Regarding

probable cause, the State proffered, on April 7, 2024, two women brought their daughters, M.W.

and A.H., to the Pontiac Police Department to report defendant, the girls’ father, sexually

touched them. Victim-sensitive interviews were conducted. One victim, who was seven years

old, disclosed defendant “used his front private part and her back private part,” and “his front

private went up her back private.” The other, who was five years old, reported defendant “stuck a

stick all the way into her butt.” She described the “stick” as “a pink plastic object with a ring on

it and a gemstone.”

¶7 A search was conducted at defendant’s residence on May 2, 2024. Several ring

pop candies were found on the dining-room table and one wrapper was found in one of the

children’s bedrooms. Officers collected several items of evidence, including cell phones, laptops,

and tablets. On a phone belonging to defendant were multiple images of child pornography. One

image was “of a prepubescent male child who was seen [lying] on what appeared to be a blue

ring pop.” The State described four other images involving prepubescent children engaged in

-2- acts of sexual intercourse.

¶8 The State tendered the Livingston County Pretrial Investigation Report.

According to the report, defendant was divorced. He reported residing with his fiancée, his

fiancée’s cousin, his stepdaughter, and his two-year-old granddaughter. Defendant had seven

children, six of whom were minors. Four of his children resided in Pontiac. Defendant worked

full-time at Accolade but had only been there for a couple of weeks. Before his employment with

Accolade, he was home as a retired/disabled Army veteran. Defendant reported being 80%

disabled due to posttraumatic stress disorder. He suffered from depression and a mood disorder.

Defendant took approximately 14 different medications related to his health issues. He attended

counseling three to four times per week. Defendant suffered from asthma, high blood pressure,

and heart and thyroid issues. On the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument-Revised

(VPRAI-R), defendant scored a 2 out of 14, meaning he had only a 6.1% risk of violating pretrial

release conditions. Defendant’s criminal history involved driving on a suspended license in 2020

and battery in 2017.

¶9 The State further made a proffer about the capabilities of the Office of Statewide

Pretrial Services (OSPS) as it related to defendant’s case. The State noted that OSPS could use

GPS monitoring to identify defendant’s location but such monitoring would not be able to show

whether other individuals were in defendant’s presence. The State further noted OSPS had “very

limited capabilities of monitoring” defendant’s Internet, phone, and social media usage.

¶ 10 Defense counsel proffered defendant would agree to comply with any pretrial

conditions. Counsel proffered OSPS can monitor social media and other electronic media during

contact with defendant. Defense counsel asked the circuit court to take judicial notice of

Livingston County case Nos. 24-OP-66 and 24-OP-67, filed in April 2024. Both involved

-3- emergency orders of protection. One case was withdrawn by the petitioner, a mother of one of

the victims. For the other case, involving the same mother, the petitioner failed to appear at the

hearing and the matter was stricken. A guardian ad litem involved with the children told defense

counsel “this is a very tumultuous custody case.”

¶ 11 After argument, the circuit court granted the State’s petition to deny defendant

pretrial release. The court found significant the facts a blue ring pop is seen in one of the photos

depicting child pornography, several ring pops were found in defendant’s residence, and one of

the children stated defendant used an item matching the description of a ring pop when he

assaulted her. The court further observed the descriptions of the assaults by the two children

“provided fairly similar allegations.” The court found the State made a compelling argument any

child is at risk. The court noted defendant scored low on the VPRAI-R. The court noted it could

order more frequent contact by OSPS with defendant but determined that would not be

sufficient. The court found OSPS had no way to monitor or confirm defendant complied with

restrictions, such as no contact of any kind with any minor child. The court rejected home

confinement and GPS monitoring as an option, noting defendant had young children and the

court could not know who was in his house. The court further emphasized the nature of the

charges. The court concluded the State had proven the dangerousness factors by clear and

convincing evidence, including the fact no conditions or combination of conditions could

mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of children under the age of 18.

¶ 12 Defendant filed a motion for relief under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2)

(eff. Apr. 15, 2024), arguing less restrictive conditions were available. He stressed his low risk-

assessment score and his full-time employment. He further emphasized the alleged victims in the

case were involved in a child-custody dispute.

-4- ¶ 13 After the circuit court denied defendant’s motion for relief, this appeal followed.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 On appeal, defendant makes one argument: the State failed to prove pretrial

release conditions were insufficiently mitigating of any threat. Defendant maintains the circuit

court erred by making its determination based solely on the facts of the offenses. Defendant

highlights the fact the offenses occurred years before the charges were brought, undermining any

conclusion he would not comply with conditions. Defendant further states nothing in the record

suggests he attempted to contact the victims.

¶ 16 Courts must presume all criminal defendants are eligible for pretrial release. 725

ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022). If the State clearly and convincingly proves a criminal

defendant dangerous as defined by the Code, the State may overcome that presumption and

secure pretrial detention of that criminal defendant. See id. §§ 110-6.1(a), (e). One prerequisite

for a dangerousness finding is no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real

and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community. See id. § 110-

6.1(e)(3). Section 110-5(a) of the Code (id. § 110-5(a)) lists factors courts should consider “[i]n

determining which conditions of pretrial release, if any, will reasonably ensure *** the safety of

any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant.” These

include the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence against

the defendant, defendant’s history and characteristics, and the nature of the threat. Id. We review

orders of detention under an abuse of discretion standard. People v. Thomas, 2024 IL App (4th)

240248, ¶ 17.

¶ 17 We disagree the State failed to proffer evidence beyond the circumstances of the

offense on this issue. Relevant to the section 110-5(a) considerations, the State presented

-5- evidence from the pretrial investigation report showing defendant, should he be released, would

have access to children. The report shows defendant resided with multiple people, including a

two-year-old child. It further shows defendant is the father of six minor children, four of whom

live in the same town. The circuit court plainly considered defendant’s access to children, the

nature of the charges, and the inability of the conditions of pretrial release to reasonably ensure

the safety of those children. In its written order, the court expressly found,

“Community/individual safety cannot be meaningfully achieved with available conditions of

pretrial release.”

¶ 18 We also find unconvincing defendant’s argument the age of the offenses

undermines the finding no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate any

dangerousness. The images, though found on an old phone, were still in defendant’s possession.

In addition, defendant continued to have access to children, including one who resided in his

home. Defendant’s possession of child pornography involving children who were not just those

in his home shows he is a danger to all children. Defendant’s cases are factually distinguishable.

For example, in People v. Finch, 2023 IL App (2d) 230381-U, ¶¶ 4, 19, the defendant was

charged with aggravated criminal sexual abuse approximately eight months after the offense

allegedly occurred and had no contact with the family of the victim for months. In Finch, the

record does not show the 71-year-old defendant resided with children, had minor children of his

own, was charged with multiple similar offenses, or was in possession of child pornography. See

id.. In People v. Riaz, 2023 IL App (1st) 231833-U, ¶¶ 5, 25, the two-year span between the

offenses and the charges involved a victim who was not a minor and there were no allegations of

multiple offenses.

¶ 19 Last, we note defendant’s reliance on People v. Post, 2024 IL App (4th) 241002-

-6- U, is misplaced. In that case, we did not find the circuit court abused its discretion based on the

proffers before it but found the court “abused its discretion by failing to make a record adequate

to allow meaningful review of its exercise of discretion.” Id. ¶ 29. Here, the record is adequate.

¶ 20 We find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s judgment in finding no

condition or combination of conditions could reasonably mitigate the threat defendant poses to

any person or persons or the community.

¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22 We affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 23 Affirmed.

-7-