Court Opinion

ID: 9716639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:46:39.762794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.494882
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting: Moore’s assertion that his conviction was based on the false testimony of prison informants bears directly on his claim that he did not, in fact, break into Judy Zeman’s home and then rape and kill her. Newly discovered evidence of actual innocence presents a constitutional question appropriate for post-conviction relief. People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 3d 404, 443-44 (1998); People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 489 (1996). The allegations of fact concerning the prisoners’ false testimony, when construed liberally in Moore’s favor and considered in light of the original trial record and supporting affidavits, are sufficient to make the “substantial showing” required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Dismissal of the post-conviction petition without such a hearing was therefore improper. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 382 (1998). Even if I agreed that Moore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, I would still hold that his death sentence cannot be allowed to stand. As Moore correctly argues and as I set out in my dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), the Illinois death penalty law violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) and article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). At a minimum, we should therefore vacate Moore’s sentence of death, and he should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 9 — l(j).