People v. Parker
2012 IL App (1st) 101809
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Parker was charged with 1999 murder and related offenses alongside codefendants; primary trial evidence was his videotaped confession after lengthy custodial interrogation; no physical or eyewitness evidence tied Parker to the victim, and defense presented no trial defense.”
- The trial court admitted pretrial proceedings detailing arrest and suppression motions; defense challenged arrest probable cause and confession voluntariness; the state relied on the videotaped confession as core proof at trial.”
- On direct appeal, the court vacated some counts under one-act, one-crime and vacated arson for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; mittimus limited convictions to one murder, one home invasion, one concealment count.
- Parker filed a pro se postconviction petition April 14, 2010 asserting a fourth amendment claim and a freestanding actual innocence claim supported by a codefendant’s affidavit (not notarized).
- The trial court dismissed the petition at first stage for lack of notarial issue and for not addressing actual innocence; the appellate court reversed the first-stage dismissal and remanded for second-stage consideration, holding the affidavit could be considered and was newly discovered evidence under Ortiz and Molstad principles.”
- The opinion discusses statutory/postconviction standards, noting de novo review at first stage and the evolving treatment of notarization and newly discovered evidence in subsequent Illinois Supreme Court decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a codefendant’s affidavit be treated as newly discovered evidence? | Molstad/Edwards support: affidavits from codefendants can be new evidence. | State previously contended it could not; relies on contrary limits. | Yes; codefendant affidavits can be newly discovered evidence; remand for second-stage review. |
| Does lack of notarization of a supporting affidavit bar first-stage consideration? | Notarization is not a prerequisite for advancing to second stage; Wilborn/Henderson control. | Lack of notarization supports dismissal at first stage. | Not a sufficient basis to dismiss at first stage; reversed and remanded for second stage. |
| Was the petition properly focused on actual innocence as a freestanding claim? | Actual innocence evidenced via codefendant affidavit; Ortiz framework satisfied. | Not addressed sufficiently by trial court; potential procedural deficiencies. | Petition preserved a viable actual innocence claim for second-stage review; remand ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Molstad, 101 Ill.2d 128 (Ill. 1984) (codefendants’ affidavits can be newly discovered evidence despite known identity)
- People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711 (Ill. 2012) (affidavits from codefendants can be newly discovered evidence under new doctrine)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill.2d 319 (Ill. 2009) (establishes criteria for actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence)
- People v. Wilborn, 2011 IL App (1st) 092802 (Ill. App. 1st 2011) (cannot dismiss first stage solely for lack of notarization of supporting affidavit)
- People v. Henderson, 2011 IL App (1st) 090923 (Ill. App. 1st 2011) (unnotarized verification affidavit not basis for first-stage dismissal)