Court Opinion

ID: 9712897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:02:27.205028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:15.149989
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I disagree that the trial court’s order denying the motion for forensic testing was error. I suggest that defendant does not meet the standards of sections 116 — 3(b)(1) and (b)(2). I also do not believe that the result of testing will be materially relevant to defendant’s assertion of actual innocence. This court in the direct appeal stated as follows: “After about an hour, the trio left in the [victims’] automobile, dropped off some property, and went to the home of a friend, Carolyn Madison. Madison testified that she saw the Medleys and defendant in her home the following morning in possession of certain items of property which were taken from the [victims’] home. The linchpin of the State’s case was Glenda Sue Medley, who related the above events in substantial detail. She also was instrumental in leading .the police to the defendant. Four days after the offense, she informed a Detective Murphy, of the Springfield police department, that she was present at the [victims’] home on the morning in question and had aided her cousin Allen and defendant steal the property.” Gibson, 117 Ill. App. 3d at 273, 452 N.E.2d at 1371. In sum, I would affirm the trial court’s order.