People v. Palinski
Key Takeaways
- 1 Third District affirmed denial of successive postconviction petition based on involuntary intoxication defense despite Second District's earlier finding of newly discovered evidence.
- 2 Circuit court properly rejected expert testimony on Paxil-induced mania where experts lacked qualifications and credibility, and evidence did not establish inability to conform conduct to law.
Summary
Adam Palinski was convicted in 2002 of solicitation of murder for hire and sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment. After unsuccessful direct appeal and initial postconviction petition, he filed a successive postconviction petition in 2017 based on newly discovered evidence of involuntary intoxication caused by Paxil. The Second District reversed the circuit court's dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. At the third-stage hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. Palinski appealed to the Third District Appellate Court.
The Third District addressed whether newly discovered evidence of Paxil-induced mania established an involuntary intoxication defense that would probably change the result on retrial. The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, holding that the Second District's determination that Palinski presented newly discovered evidence remained binding because he had submitted affidavits and contemporary documentation—distinguishing People v. Taliani. However, the court affirmed the circuit court's denial on the merits, finding the evidence was not conclusive enough to probably change the result.
The court rejected expert testimony from a pharmacist and psychiatrist, finding the pharmacist unqualified (holding only a pharmacy degree and research-oriented certification, with prior false credentials claims) and the psychiatrist's opinion not credible (insufficient contact with defendant, no in-person meeting, and admitted speculation). Critically, the court found no credible evidence that a prolonged manic state caused impulsivity, given months of planning, coordination, and deliberation evident in recorded conversations.
Key Holdings
1. The law-of-the-case doctrine does not prevent the Third District from reviewing the merits of a successive postconviction petition where the defendant submitted affidavits and contemporary documentation establishing involuntary intoxication, distinguishing People v. Taliani.
2. At the third stage of postconviction proceedings, the trial court acts as factfinder; its credibility and fact determinations are not reversed unless manifestly erroneous.
3. Newly discovered evidence of Paxil-induced mania was insufficient to establish involuntary intoxication defense where evidence did not conclusively establish defendant was unable to conform conduct to law, particularly given months of planning and deliberation.
4. Expert testimony regarding defendant's ability to conform conduct to law was properly rejected where the pharmacist lacked clinical qualifications and the psychiatrist lacked sufficient contact with defendant and admitted his opinion was speculation.