Court Opinion

ID: 9743588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:37:25.011919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.270334
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BILANDIC, concurring in part and dissenting in part: This case involves two separate and distinct appeals. The first is defendant’s direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. Based upon the record, briefs and arguments, I concur with the majority in affirming defendant’s conviction and death penalty. The second appeal involves the dismissal, without an evidentiary hearing, of defendant’s post-conviction petition. The majority affirms the trial court’s dismissal of the post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. At this significant juncture, I must respectfully dissent. The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (111. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 122 — 1 et seq.) is designed to provide a post-conviction remedy for violations of a defendant’s substantial constitutional rights at trial. (People v. Cihlar (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 212, 216.) In order to prevail under the Act, a defendant must establish that there was action by the State inconsistent with fundamental principles of liberty and justice which reflect the community’s sense of fair play and decency. (People v. Cornille (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 497, 508.) A defendant proceeding under the Act is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the allegations of his petition, supported by accompanying affidavits or transcripts, make a substantial showing that the defendant’s fundamental rights have been violated. (People v. Caballero (1989), 126 Ill. 2d 248, 259.) When the State moves for the dismissal of a defendant’s post-conviction petition, the truth of the petition’s factually supported allegations is assumed and the issue is solely whether the allegations, if proved, would constitute a constitutional defect. People v. Wilson (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 275, 277; People v. Brumas (1986), 142 Ill. App. 3d 178, 180. It has long been recognized, by both the United States Supreme Court and this court, that the deprivation of an individual’s liberty based upon false testimony is contrary to fundamental principles of fairness in a civilized society. (See, e.g., Napue v. Illinois (1959), 360 U.S. 264, 269, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217, 1221, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 1177; Cornille, 95 Ill. 2d at 509.) “Perjury is the mortal enemy of justice” (People v. Shannon (1975), 28 Ill. App. 3d 873, 878), and, as stated by the Supreme Court, “[t]he government of a strong and free nation does not need convictions based upon such testimony.” Mesarosh v. United States (1956), 352 U.S. 1, 14, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1, 10, 77 S. Ct. 1, 8. The majority recognizes that Darryl Moore was the key prosecution witness that provided information that led to defendant’s arrest for the murder of Carl Gibson. His testimony at trial contributed to the success of the prosecution. Defendant was convicted on July 2, 1985. Approximately two years later, on August 10, 1987, Moore was the key witness for the prosecution in another Cook County homicide (People v. Freeman, No. 86 — CR—2090). During his testimony in that case, Moore testified under oath that he had lied at defendant’s trial two years earlier. Moore further testified that he was paid to do so by a police detective and members of the State’s Attorney’s office. On another occasion after defendant’s conviction, Darryl Moore stated that he had lied at defendant’s trial. On August 20, 1986, Moore gave a video-taped statement in which he repudiated his testimony incriminating defendant. He also stated facts and circumstances that alleged improper conduct on the part of law enforcement agencies with which Moore was cooperating to obtain financial rewards and lenient treatment for crimes he had committed. The post-conviction petition, supported by affidavits and transcripts containing Moore’s testimony at the Freeman trial and his video-taped statement, was never answered by the prosecution. A motion to dismiss was filed approximately 22 months later. As previously stated, a motion to dismiss admits all well-pleaded facts in the post-conviction petition. Wilson, 39 Ill. 2d at 277. Therefore, the sole issue is whether the trial court properly dismissed defendant’s post-conviction petition as a matter of law. The record reveals that Darryl Moore spoke on three separate occasions on critical matters which resulted in defendant’s conviction. The first statement was at defendant’s trial. On two subsequent occasions, the video statement and the Freeman trial, Moore stated that his trial testimony against defendant was a lie. Darryl Moore is a self-confessed liar. The only question is when the lie occurred. When the life of a defendant is at stake, it is better to search for the truth at an evidentiary hearing than to rely on the discretion of the trial judge. I believe that the majority’s decision conflicts with this court’s holding in People v. Cihlar (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 212. Therein, the defendant filed a post-conviction petition in which the defendant claimed to have recently discovered several witnesses whose testimony would show that the victim had lied on the stand. The petition also proposed to present the testimony of a witness who had testified at defendant’s trial but had not revealed, during that testimony, a statement the victim had made to her which contradicted the victim’s trial testimony. The trial court dismissed the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. (Cihlar, 111 Ill. 2d at 217.) Recognizing the fundamental rights implicated when a conviction is based on perjured testimony, this court determined that the defendant had sufficiently alleged a violation of substantial constitutional rights and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition. Cihlar, 111 Ill. 2d at 217. In the instant case, the evidence of possible perjury was even stronger than that presented in Cihlar. Here, the key witness is himself stating that his testimony at defendant’s trial was false. In Cihlar, the veracity of the victim’s testimony was being challenged by the testimony of third parties, not by the victim herself. Further, in Cihlar, this court noted that the fact of the proposed additional testimony of the witness who had testified at trial could have been raised on direct appeal, but the defendant failed to raise it. Despite this ostensible waiver, this court determined that fundamental fairness required that the issue be adjudicated at an evidentiary hearing. (Cihlar, 111 Ill. 2d at 218.) Also noteworthy is that, in Cihlar, the proposed testimony of the additional witnesses was fully set out in the defendant’s petition, yet this court did not find that the trial judge’s bare reading of the proposed testimony was an adequate substitute for the live testimony of those witnesses. Likewise, in the case at bar, the trial judge’s review of the transcripts of Moore’s recantation testimony cannot take the place of a full evidentiary hearing on defendant’s petition. In addition to Cihlar, several other cases, from this court and the appellate court, undermine the majority’s holding. In People v. Sawyer (1971), 48 Ill. 2d 127, this court remanded for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant’s post-conviction petition alleged that the prosecutor failed to correct the record when the key prosecution witness falsely testified about her criminal record. The court found that these allegations, supported by the affidavit of defense counsel, were sufficient to make a substantial showing that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated and thus to entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing. (Sawyer, 48 Ill. 2d at 131.) In People v. Martin (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 565, a police informer and a police officer both testified at the defendant’s trial that the informer was never paid by the police for his informer services. The trial court dismissed, without an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s post-conviction petition which alleged that, at a later, unrelated trial, another police officer testified that this particular informer was, on occasion, paid for his services by the police. This court held that these allegations were sufficient to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation and that an evidentiary hearing was required to determine if the violation did in fact occur. Martin, 46 Ill. 2d at 568; see also People v. Spicer (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 246, 250 (dismissal without an evidentiary hearing was improper where the defendant’s post-conviction petition contained allegations, supported by affidavit, that the prosecution allowed its key witness to falsely testify that he had been offered no consideration for his testimony). The precedents of this court and principles of fundamental fairness require an evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing may confirm the fact that the trial judge exercised sound discretion in dismissing defendant’s post-conviction petition. However, under the facts of this case, I do not believe that we should permit the extreme penalty to be inflicted without the safeguard of an evidentiary hearing. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE CLARK joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.