People v. Slover
959 N.E.2d 72
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- May 2002 jury convicted defendants of first-degree murder and concealment; each received 60-year murder terms and 5-year concealment terms; direct appeal affirmed in an unpublished order.
- December 2009, defendants moved to reinstate 116-3 motion seeking fingerprint testing from latent prints on a Hardee's bag and a guardrail print related to Karyn Slover homicide.
- February 2010, trial court held hearing; FBI IAFIS to test Hardee's bag print; ISP AFIS testing discussed for guardrail print with competing expert testimony.
- March 2010, trial court denied motion, finding guardrail print unsuitable for AFIS and no potential for new evidence; considered alternative, cumulative-theory, and credibility of witnesses.
- May–Sept. 2011, appellate briefing and oral argument; Fourth District affirmed trial court’s denial, adopting manifestly erroneous standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AFIS testing on the guardrail print had potential for new, noncumulative evidence | Slover | Slover | No; guardrail print not suitable for AFIS; testing would not produce new material innocence evidence. |
| Appropriate standard of review for a section 116-3 motion with a hearing | People | Slover | Manifestly erroneous standard governs appeals from such rulings, not de novo. |
| Whether the 116-3 motion was forfeited by focusing on FBI IAFIS rather than ISP AFIS | People | Slover | Not forfeited; proceedings treated as AFIS testing request vs IAFIS were sufficiently addressed. |
| Whether the court should rely on credibility assessments in evaluating the 116-3 claim | People | Slover | Yes; credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and support the ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pursley, 407 Ill.App.3d 526 (2011) (standard of review for 116-3 motions)
- People v. Hockenberry, 316 Ill.App.3d 752 (2000) (deference to trial court; purpose of 116-3)
- People v. Urioste, 316 Ill.App.3d 307 (2000) (section 116-3 considerations)
- People v. Beaman, 229 Ill.2d 56 (2008) (manifestly erroneous standard in postconviction)
- People v. Barker, 403 Ill.App.3d 515 (2010) (forfeiture of testing not initially requested)
- People v. Oliver, 236 Ill.2d 448 (2010) (two-part suppression standard)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366 (1998) (postconviction-like review framework)
- Gray v. State, 121 Ill.App.3d 867 (1984) (credibility of experts is for the trier of fact)