People v. Dominguez
2025 IL App (2d) 240772-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Defendant Ethan Dominguez was charged with multiple firearm-related felonies after police discovered a loaded firearm with a defaced serial number under the driver’s seat during a traffic stop; defendant was allegedly observed reaching to that location just before discovery.
- Defendant was the only backseat passenger in an Uber vehicle; the Uber driver had a FOID card but denied owning the firearm.
- Defendant had a prior conviction for illegal firearm possession and was on probation for that offense at the time of the new incident.
- The State filed a petition to deny pretrial release based on the asserted community threat and argued no condition would mitigate the risk.
- The trial court ordered defendant’s pretrial detention; defendant filed a motion for relief, presenting evidence of stable home prospects and employment if released.
- The court denied relief, citing risk due to defendant’s gang affiliation, criminal history, and the inability to monitor him via EHM if he relocated to Cook County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proof is evident/presumption great defendant committed the offenses | Officer observed defendant reach toward firearm location; sufficient circumstantial evidence | Firearm was not found on defendant; lack of DNA/fingerprints; driver could be responsible | State met burden; constructive possession established by observations |
| Whether defendant poses a real and present threat to community | Defendant’s gang ties, prior conviction, and probation status show dangerousness | Defendant is a young adult, employed, stable home, only one prior adult offense | State proved real, present threat exists |
| No condition or combo of conditions could mitigate risk | EHM not feasible due to county; prior probation failures; family supervision inadequate | Release conditions like EHM, stay-home order, family monitoring would suffice | State showed no conditions would mitigate threat due to defendant’s history and risk |
| Consideration of police synopsis as evidence | Police synopsis is reliable, commonly used for proof at this stage | Insufficient without physical or forensic evidence | Reliable synopses are adequate for detention at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. United States, 575 U.S. 622 (2015) (Constructive possession allows for liability where defendant exercises control over items not in physical custody)
- In re Tiffany W., 2021 IL App (1st) 102492-B (Clear and convincing standard is more than preponderance but less than beyond reasonable doubt)
- Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677 (Court will not address issues without sufficient argument and authority)
- People v. Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382 (Police report synopses can suffice to show proof is evident or presumption great at pretrial detention stage)