2022 IL App (2d) 210558
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- April 2, 1993: Andrew Asher was shot and killed while seated in a parked car; eyewitness description and spent 9mm evidence recovered at the scene.
- Police searched an apartment shared by Patrick Pursley and Samantha Crabtree and recovered a 9mm Taurus; Crabtree gave a written statement implicating Pursley, later recanting at trial; witness Windham also implicated Pursley.
- At the 1994 trial, State ballistics expert Gunnell testified the recovered bullets/casings were fired from the Taurus; Pursley was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life.
- Over years Pursley pursued postconviction relief and IBIS/ballistics testing; later expert reexaminations (Murdock, Coleman) concluded the Taurus did not fire the recovered bullets/casings; State examiners’ conclusions became inconclusive on bullets and limited on casings.
- 2019: Pursley retried (bench); court found no physical/eyewitness link and credited defense ballistics experts, entered acquittal. Pursley then sought a certificate of innocence; the trial court granted it, finding he proved actual innocence by a preponderance. State and intervening officers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pursley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate standard of appellate review of certificate of innocence | De novo review because the certificate hearing was nonevidentiary and relied on the record | Abuse-of-discretion (or manifest-weight) standard applies given trial court’s familiarity and prior live hearings | Court: de novo review improper; deferential review (abuse of discretion / manifest weight) applies and would yield same result |
| Whether trial court shifted burden on innocence | Trial court effectively relied on acquittal and required appellants to disprove innocence | Pursley bore and met the preponderance burden; court expressly stated burden on Pursley | Court: no improper burden shift; trial court kept preponderance standard |
| Whether Pursley proved actual innocence by a preponderance | State: new ballistics evidence insufficient; other theories (e.g., Beretta) and circumstantial evidence support guilt | Pursley: modern ballistics testing and expert testimony conclusively exclude the Taurus and undercut key trial evidence and witness credibility | Court: Pursley met burden — expert comparisons, lack of physical/eyewitness linkage, IBIS non-match, and credibility findings made innocence more probable than not |
| Relevance of alternative-theory (Beretta) and alteration theory | State: Taurus exclusion doesn’t prove innocence; Beretta in apartment or Taurus could have been altered after murder | Pursley: he need not disprove novel theories never argued at trial; ballistics excluded the Taurus as argued by the State | Court: arguments forfeited/unreasonable; statute doesn’t require proving innocence as to previously unraised novel theories; alteration theory speculative and did not undermine experts’ conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147 (Ill. 2007) (de novo review appropriate where trial court decides solely on documentary record)
- Proctor v. Upjohn Co., 175 Ill. 2d 394 (Ill. 1997) (departure of a judge before filing does not invalidate decision if remaining judges concur)
- Betts v. United States, 10 F.3d 1278 (7th Cir. 1993) (certificate of innocence serves mainly to permit suit for wrongful incarceration)
- People v. Love, 404 Ill. App. 3d 784 (Ill. App. 2010) (definition of preponderance of the evidence)
- People v. Palmer, 2021 IL 125621 (Ill. 2021) (a petitioner should not be required to prove innocence of a novel theory of guilt never presented to the trier of fact)
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (Ill. 1988) (issues not raised at trial are generally forfeited on appeal)