2020 IL App (3d) 170655
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Defendant Jumar House was convicted after a bench trial of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon based principally on surveillance video and eyewitness Nicholas Pannell’s identification; defendant received a 33-year sentence for attempted murder.
- Surveillance video showed a Black man in dark clothing firing a gun, but lighting and angle made positive identification from the video unreliable; Pannell was the key witness who identified House and had pled guilty to an unrelated weapon offense.
- After conviction, House filed a postconviction petition alleging actual innocence supported by multiple affidavits (Hunter, Davis, Green) claiming the shooter was not House and Murray’s affidavit alleging Pannell recanted / lied to obtain a plea benefit; Gibson’s affidavit addressed trial counsel’s investigation but did not advance innocence.
- The State moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the affidavits were legally insufficient, immaterial, or cumulative; an ASA averred no deal was offered to Pannell for his testimony.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition at the second stage; the Appellate Court reversed, holding the affidavits, taken as true, satisfied the three-pronged test for newly discovered evidence and remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether House made a substantial showing of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence sufficient to survive second-stage dismissal | State: affidavits are legally deficient, immaterial or cumulative and would not probably change the outcome; ASA affidavit denies any deal with Pannell | House: multiple newly discovered affidavits identify another shooter and allege Pannell lied; evidence is material, noncumulative, and could probably change the result | Reversed and remanded: court held affidavits were newly discovered, material/noncumulative, and, when viewed with trial evidence, could probably lead to a different result — remand for third-stage hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (2001) (standard for advancing postconviction petition from second to third stage)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (2006) (at second stage, court accepts well-pleaded facts not positively rebutted by the record)
- People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 293 (2002) (definition of newly discovered evidence)
- People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688 (2013) (second-stage review focuses on legal sufficiency)
- People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 (2016) (requirements for newly discovered evidence to reach third-stage)