The Appellate Court observed that “there was no alternative motive clearly
present from the record and, given the facts, it would have been difficult for the
trial court to certify the opposite conclusion, that there was no indication that
defendant was motivated to engage in conduct of a sexual nature.”
3. The court rejected the defense argument that the Act confines
consideration of “sexual motivation” to the facts of the underlying offense. Motive
is not an essential element of the offense of unlawful restraint. A court could
consider “only the elements of the offense at trial absent motive.” The legislature
did not intend that the “statute would then prohibit the State from presenting
evidence at a posttrial and postsentencing proceeding that, while not necessary
to prove defendant committed the crime, did tend to prove why he committed that
crime.”
Therefore, while the trial court had found that defendant’s possession of a
pornographic magazine was inadmissible at trial, it properly considered that
evidence in determining that the offense was sexually motivated.
4. A court may also properly consider the defendant’s social and criminal
history as set forth in the presentence investigation report if relevant. Analyzing
the facts of the underlying offense necessarily requires consideration of a
defendant’s background and the stimuli motivating the present conduct.
The trial court thus properly considered defendant’s self-report that he was
the victim of sexual abuse when he was younger and that he was physically
abused because his family believed that he was a homosexual. Although
defendant’s mere arrests for prostitution and solicitation absent supporting
evidence are not properly considered, defendant’s criminal history was not a
significant factor in the trial court’s decision.
The Appellate Court affirmed the finding that defendant was required to
register as a sex offender.
(Defendant was represented by Assistant Defender Karl Mundt, Chicago.)
205
