People v. Barrow
2011 IL App (3d) 100086
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Barrow moved under 725 ILCS 5/116-3 in 2008 for testing of evidence from his 1985 murder trial.
- The State did not object to testing some items but contested testing of the seat cushion, O’Berto’s clothes, and Barrow’s shoes.
- A hearing was held; the State called a witness (Anselme) to address the scientific potential of testing.
- The trial court ordered some testing while denying testing of the seat cushion and clothes, and later denied further testing of the shoes.
- Barrow appealed the denial, arguing the 116-3 process allows testing and that testing would advance his innocence claim.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no error in allowing a witness and in denying testing of the cushion, clothes, and shoes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the State present a witness at a section 116-3 hearing? | Barrow: statute not permit witnesses; relies on pleadings. | People: statute permits and may benefit determinations. | Yes; witness testimony allowed. |
| Did the court err in denying testing of the seat cushion and O’Berto’s clothes? | Barrow: testing could yield materially relevant evidence of innocence. | People: testing would not produce probative evidence given lack of linkage and care requirements. | No; testing denied. |
| Was the denial of testing of Barrow’s shoes proper? | Barrow: testing could demonstrate a manufacturing defect and support innocence. | People: testing not within statute’s permitted tests and prior testing already occurred. | No; testing denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hockenberry, 316 Ill. App. 3d 752 (2000) (de novo review of 116-3 orders; testing potentially relevant)
- People v. Pursley, 407 Ill. App. 3d 526 (2011) (statutory scope of 116-3 and ballistic testing limits)
- People v. Bailey, 386 Ill. App. 3d 68 (2008) (statutory interpretation; limits on testing; multiple motions)
- People v. Henderson, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1108 (2003) (testing of evidence where probative value shown)
- People v. Travis, 329 Ill. App. 3d 280 (2002) (limited discovery on chain-of-custody issues)
- People v. Savory, 197 Ill. 2d 203 (2001) (actual innocence standard; materially relevant evidence)
- People v. Urioste, 316 Ill. App. 3d 307 (2000) (measurement of material relevance to innocence)
- People v. Johnson, 205 Ill. 2d 381 (2002) (DNA testing potential to produce materially relevant evidence)