2024 IL App (1st) 240202-U

No. 1-24-0202B 

Order filed April 12, 2024 

Fifth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MALIK BOYD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 22 CR 4224 

Honorable 

James B. Novy, 

Judge Presiding. 

JUSTICE NAVARRO delivered the judgment of the court.

 Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Lyle concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

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

¶ 2 In March 2022, defendant Malik Boyd was charged with, inter alia, first-degree murder 

and denied bail. Thereafter, Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly 

known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act), became effective and amended Article 110 of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-1 et seq. (West 2022)), thereby abolishing 

monetary bail in Illinois and changing the framework of pretrial release. Due to the Act, Boyd filed 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 2 - 

a petition for pretrial release, and the State filed its own verified petition for pretrial detention. 

Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Boyd’s petition to grant pretrial release and granted 

the State’s petition for pretrial detention. Boyd now appeals those rulings and contends that the 

court erred by detaining him pretrial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In March 2022, Boyd was arrested and charged with three counts of first-degree murder, 

one count of attempted aggravated vehicular hijacking and one count of attempted armed robbery. 

Following a bond hearing, the circuit court held him on no bail and denied him pretrial release. On 

September 18, 2023, the Act became effective. See Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52. 

¶ 5 On January 5, 2024, Boyd filed a petition to grant pretrial release pursuant to the Act, 

asserting he was 21 years old with no prior felony convictions and that he could be released on 

electronic monitoring to live with his father. Four days later, the State filed a verified petition for 

pretrial detention under section 110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), positing

that the proof was evident, or the presumption great, that Boyd committed first-degree murder, a 

detainable offense under the Act. The State further posited that Boyd posed a real and present 

threat to the safety of the community and that no condition or combination of conditions of release 

could mitigate that risk.

¶ 6 On the same day the State filed its petition, the circuit court held a detention hearing. 

Defense counsel asserted that, although companions of Boyd exited a vehicle driven by him and 

were involved in a shooting that killed an individual, there was no evidence he left the vehicle or 

had a firearm. Counsel therefore stated that there was no evidence Boyd had an active role in the 

shooting. As such, counsel argued the proof was not evident, and the presumption not great, that 

Boyd committed a first-degree murder even under a theory of accountability. Counsel highlighted 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 3 - 

Boyd’s age, that he had no prior felony convictions and argued there was no articulable threat of 

him to either a specific person or the community. Counsel contended that he should be released 

pretrial with house arrest or electronic monitoring.

¶ 7 The State recounted the facts of the alleged first-degree murder, where in April 2020, the 

victim, a valid firearm owner’s identification card holder, walked his fiancée to her vehicle early 

in the morning. The victim’s fiancée entered her vehicle, and as the victim was saying goodbye to 

her, a white sedan driven by Boyd came up behind them. Three other individuals jumped out of 

the sedan, and one of them exchanged gunfire with the victim, which resulted in him being shot 

and killed. Surveillance video captured the white sedan, which had its front license plate folded 

up, leaving the scene and arriving at a nearby hospital three minutes later. According to the State, 

through a photograph, the fiancée identified the white sedan from the hospital as the one being 

involved in the murder. The State proffered that the video evidence further showed Boyd exiting 

the driver’s seat wearing a black shirt with a large “V” on it. Another occupant of the white sedan 

exited and went into the hospital seeking treatment for his own gunshot wound. Thereafter, Boyd 

and the other two individuals drove away from the hospital. Later that same day, Boyd was shot 

in another incident. Additional surveillance video depicted him arriving at another hospital in the 

same white sedan with its front license plate folded up. Boyd exited the sedan wearing the same 

clothing from before and sought treatment at the hospital. There, according to the State, Boyd gave 

his name to hospital personnel. The State also noted that two Chicago police officers identified 

Boyd. The State further remarked that Boyd was not arrested for the offense until March 2022.

¶ 8 In addition, the State introduced as aggravating evidence that Boyd had been charged in 

two criminal cases in July 2021, one for aggravated vehicular hijacking and one for aggravated 

unlawful use of a weapon. The State recounted the facts of those two cases in depth. In the 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 4 - 

aggravated vehicular hijacking case, Boyd allegedly pointed a firearm at the victim. In the 

aggravated unlawful use of a weapon case, in which Boyd initially attempted to flee from the 

police, he allegedly had possession of a semi-automatic firearm without having been issued a valid 

firearm owner’s identification card or concealed carry license. The State further observed that

Boyd had three prior juvenile adjudications for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, escape and 

possession of a stolen motor vehicle, all during 2019 and 2020. Given the circumstances of the 

instant case and Boyd’s “significant” and “violent” criminal background, the State argued that no 

conditions could keep the public safe from him and requested his continued pretrial detention. 

¶ 9 Following the parties’ arguments, the circuit court orally found that the proof was evident 

that Boyd committed the alleged offenses and he posed a real and present threat to the safety of 

both the victim’s fiancée, who witnessed the murder, and the community. Additionally, the court 

concluded that only detention could mitigate that real and present threat. In explaining these 

findings, the court thereafter observed that, although Boyd’s charges were based on accountability, 

that did not make him legally less responsible. The court also asserted that Boyd’s background, 

including his pending cases and his juvenile adjudications, was “violent” in nature. Consequently, 

the court orally denied Boyd’s petition for pretrial release and implicitly granted the State’s 

petition for pretrial detention.

¶ 10 In the circuit court’s written order, it found that the proof was evident, or the presumption 

great, that Boyd participated in an attempted vehicular hijacking as the driver of a vehicle where a 

victim was shot by one of his companions. The court also found that Boyd posed a real and present 

threat to the safety of the victim’s fiancée, who witnessed the shooting, if he were released pretrial. 

Additionally, the court concluded no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the 

real and present threat that Boyd posed. The court added that less restrictive conditions would not 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 5 - 

avoid that threat because Boyd had two pending cases involving firearms and was the driver of a 

vehicle in which its occupants were involved in an attempted vehicular hijacking and first-degree 

murder. The court therefore ordered Boyd detained pretrial. 

¶ 11 This appeal followed. 

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 Boyd contends the circuit court erred in concluding that the State had met its burden of 

proving all three elements necessary to detain him pretrial under the Act: (1) that the proof was 

evident, or the presumption great, that he committed an eligible offense; (2) that he posed a real 

and present threat to the community or a specific person; and (3) that no condition or combination 

of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat he posed. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)-

(3) (West 2022).

¶ 14 In the instant case, Boyd was arrested in March 2022 for, inter alia, first-degree murder, 

which was before the September 18, 2023, effective date of the Act (see Rowe, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 

52) and has been in custody ever since. Under these circumstances, Boyd had the option to remain 

in pretrial detention or file a petition to reconsider. See People v. Kurzeja, 2023 IL App (3d) 

230434, ¶ 14. Boyd chose the latter, triggering section 110-7.5(b)(1) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-

7.5(b)(1) (West 2022)). Under that section, individuals, like Boyd, who were previously held on 

no bail and detained pretrial before the Act became effective and had been charged with certain 

offenses, including first-degree murder, must be given a hearing within 90 days of filing a “motion 

for reconsideration of pretrial release conditions,” i.e., the petition to grant pretrial release that 

Boyd filed. Id. Section 110-7.5(b)(1) of the Code, in turn, references a hearing proceeding under 

section 110-6.1 of the Code (id. § 110-6.1). Although under that section, the court may only deny 

a defendant pretrial release upon a verified petition by the State (id. § 110-6.1(a)), the State filed 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 6 - 

one in the instant case in response to Boyd’s petition for reconsideration, which was proper. See 

Kurzeja, 2023 IL App (3d) 230434, ¶ 14. 

¶ 15 Turning to the pretrial detention hearing under section 110-6.1 of the Code, before 

conducting such a hearing, all defendants begin with the presumption that they are eligible for 

pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022). As relevant to Boyd, in order to continue his 

pretrial detention, the State “bear[ed] the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence” 

three elements. Id. First, the State had to show “the proof [was] evident or the presumption great” 

that Boyd committed first-degree murder. Id. § 110-6.1(e)(1). Second, the State had to show that 

he “pose[d] a real and present threat to the safety” of the community or any specific person based 

on the specific articulable facts of the case. Id. § 110-6.1(e)(2). Third, the State had to show that 

“no condition or combination of conditions *** [could] mitigate (i) the real and present threat to 

the safety” of the community or any specific person based on the specific articulable facts of the 

case. Id. § 110-6.1(e)(3).

¶ 16 We review the circuit court’s determinations on whether the State met its burden on these 

three elements under the manifest-weight standard. People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 

12. “A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is 

clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence 

presented.” People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008). However, the court’s ultimate decision

to detain a defendant pretrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App 

(4th) 230864, ¶¶ 10-11. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the [circuit] court’s decision is 

arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable [citation] or where no reasonable person would agree with the 

position adopted by the [circuit] court.” People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234 (2010). 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 7 - 

¶ 17 As to the first element, in the State’s petition, it alleged that the proof was evident, or the 

presumption great, Boyd committed first-degree murder. We note in the circuit court’s written 

order, it found that standard met with regard to Boyd participating in an attempted vehicular 

hijacking as the driver of a vehicle where a victim was shot by one of his companions. However, 

consistent with the State’s petition, it only proffered allegations about first-degree murder and 

never proffered any allegations about an attempted vehicular hijacking even though Boyd was 

charged with attempted aggravated vehicular hijacking. But because the court orally found that the 

proof was evident, or the presumption great, Boyd “committed the offenses alleged,” i.e., firstdegree murder, and we can review both the court’s written order and oral findings in tandem (see

People v. Vance, 2024 IL App (1st) 232503, ¶¶ 29, 32), its statements encompassed a finding about 

first-degree murder.

¶ 18 In doing so, the circuit court noted that the allegations against Boyd were based on a theory 

of accountability. Under a theory of accountability, the “[m]ere presence of a defendant at the 

scene of a crime does not render one accountable for the offense.” People v. Taylor, 164 Ill. 2d 

131, 140 (1995). But “active participation has never been a requirement for the imposition of 

criminal guilt under an accountability theory.” Id. To prove guilt by accountability, the trier of fact 

may rely upon various factors, including “[p]roof that defendant was present during the 

perpetration of the offense, that he maintained a close affiliation with his companions after the 

commission of the crime,” and that he fled from the scene. Id. at 141. 

¶ 19 The State’s proffer, which was based on statements from the victim’s fiancée as well as 

surveillance footage, sufficiently showed that Boyd drove to the scene with the companion who 

discharged the fatal gunshot and fled the scene with that companion. In light of these 

circumstances, the circuit court’s finding that the State met its burden to show the proof was 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 8 - 

evident, or the presumption great, Boyd committed first-degree murder on a theory of 

accountability was not arbitrary, unreasonable or not based on the evidence presented. See id. at 

140-41. Moreover, contrary to Boyd’s assertion, there is no indication from our review of the 

record that the court assumed his guilt. Consequently, the court did not commit manifest error as 

to the first element. 

¶ 20 We now turn to the second element, wherein the circuit court premised its dangerousness 

finding, through both its written order and oral pronouncements, to the community and the victim’s 

fiancée, in part, based on the fact that Boyd had a violent criminal background. Given the 

allegations of the instant case, his two pending cases, which involved a violent carjacking and a 

firearms offense, and his juvenile adjudications, which included another firearms offense, the State 

undoubtedly demonstrated that Boyd is a clear danger to the community. See 725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(g)(1), (2) (West 2022) (providing that, in determining whether the defendant is a clear danger 

to the community or a specific person, the circuit court may consider “[t]he nature and 

circumstances of any offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, 

involving a weapon” and “[t]he history and characteristics of the defendant”). While there is 

nothing articulable in the record to indicate that Boyd is a specific danger to the fiancée—though 

she was present when the shooting occurred—it cannot be credibly argued that the court’s finding 

of dangerousness to the community was arbitrary, unreasonable or not based on the evidence 

presented. Consequently, the court did not commit manifest error as to the second element.

¶ 21 Lastly, we turn to the third element, where Boyd highlights that his defense counsel argued 

there were pretrial release conditions that would mitigate the risk he posed, such as house arrest or 

electronic monitoring. Nevertheless, Boyd posits that the State never made any specific arguments 

as to why these conditions or any others would not mitigate the risk he posed. Instead, according to 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 9 - 

Boyd, the State summarily argued that no conditions of release would mitigate the risk based on 

the allegations of the instant case and his background. 

¶ 22 In the instant case, when arguing for continued pretrial detention, the State posited that no 

condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat Boyd posed given the nature of 

his first-degree murder charges and his “violent” background, both as an adult through his pending 

cases and as a juvenile through his adjudications. Consistent with the State’s proffer, in the circuit 

court’s written order, it concluded that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate 

the threat Boyd posed because he had two pending cases involving firearms and was the driver of 

a vehicle in which its occupants were involved in an attempted vehicular hijacking and first-degree 

murder. See 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(1), (3) (West 2022) (outlining the various factors the circuit 

court should consider in determining the conditions, if any, of pretrial release including “the nature 

and circumstances of the offense charged” and “the history and characteristics of the defendant”). 

Given the nature and circumstances of the first-degree murder charges and Boyd’s background, 

the court’s finding that the State met its burden to show no condition or combination of conditions 

could mitigate the real and present threat he posed was not arbitrary, unreasonable or not based on 

the evidence presented. 

¶ 23 Still, Boyd heavily relies upon Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, to support his argument 

that the State failed to meet its burden. However, in Stock, the defendant had no criminal history.

Id. ¶ 19. In the present case, Boyd has an extensive juvenile background and two pending cases, 

one of which involves an alleged violent carjacking. Stock is therefore inapposite. Consequently, 

the circuit court did not commit manifest error as to the third and final element. 

¶ 24 Where the circuit court did not commit manifest error in finding the State met its burden 

to show all three elements necessary for Boyd’s pretrial detention under the Act (see 725 ILCS 
No. 1-24-0202B 

- 10 - 

5/110-6.1(e)(1)-(3) (West 2022)), its ultimate decision to order him detained pretrial was not 

arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering 

his pretrial detention. 

¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 26 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 27 Affirmed.