People v. Wrice
2012 IL 111860
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Petition for leave to file a second successive postconviction petition challenging 1983 rape/conspiracy convictions filed October 2007.
- Claim: defendant’s confession was the product of police brutality and torture at Area 2 by Byrne and Dignan.
- Trial court denied leave; appellate court reversed, remanding for a third-stage evidentiary hearing under cause-and-prejudice review.
- Special State’s Attorney Edward Egan’s 2002 report on Area 2 torture was attached; defendant argued it satisfied cause and prejudice.
- State conceded cause prong but argued the prejudice prong failed under the then-prevailing law; Fulminante later influenced the harmless-error framework.
- Court affirmatively remands for appointment of postconviction counsel and second-stage proceedings, affirming the appellate court’s modification and remand directions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coercive confession is subject to harmless-error review. | Wrice relies on Wilson per se rule of never harmless. | Fulminante allows harmless-error analysis for coerced confessions. | Fulminante does not mandate abolishing the rule; but harmless-error analysis may apply to coercion. |
| Whether the Wilson per se rule remains viable after Fulminante. | Wilson rule should apply to preclude harmless error. | Fulminante narrows, permitting some review. | The Wilson rule is partially retained: physically coerced confessions are never harmless error. |
| Whether the postconviction court could review new torture evidence for cause and prejudice. | OPS findings and Egan report show systemic abuse. | Evidence insufficient to meet prejudice beyond trial record. | Appellate court’s prejudice analysis is appropriate; remand for further proceedings. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for postconviction counsel and second-stage proceedings. | Procedural posture requires counsel and full second-stage review. | No immediate entitlement to second-stage hearing. | Remand to appoint postconviction counsel and conduct second-stage proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wilson, 116 Ill. 2d 29 (Ill. 1987) (coerced confession evidence never harmless error (per se rule))
- People v. Mahaffey, 194 Ill. 2d 154 (Ill. 2000) (discussed but overruled to extent inconsistent with harmless-error framework)
- People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill. 1998) (confessions; coercion evidence considerations at postconviction)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (harmless-error analysis allowed for coerced confessions in some contexts; structural vs trial error distinctions)
- Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1958) (coerced confession vitiates conviction; due process concerns)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error doctrine recognized; some errors deemed not harmless)
- Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1986) (instructional error; harmless-error framework limitations)