Illinois Law Update:
Illinois Appellate Court Cases

On November 12, 2015, the Third District of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed Drew Peterson's first degree murder conviction and sentencing on the grounds that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In March 2004, Kathleen Savio was found dead in the bathtub of her home in Bollingbrook, Illinois. Her friends and former husband, Drew Peterson, found her in the bathtub after not hearing from her for several days. There was no water in the bathtub, and it was not immediately clear how Kathleen died. At the time of her death, Kathleen's marriage was legally dissolved, but property division, pension, and child support issues were still pending and scheduled for a hearing the following month. After initial investigation, no criminal charges were filed and Kathleen's cause of death was ruled an accident.

In October 2007, Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared. The state subsequently ordered two additional autopsies of Kathleen's body, both of which separately concluded that her cause of death was homicide. In May 2009, the state charged Peterson with Kathleen's murder. At the end of trial, the jury found Peterson guilty of first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to 38 years in prison. Peterson appealed this conviction arguing, among other things, that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prevail on a charge of first degree murder, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) defendant performed the acts which caused the death of the victim, and (2) when defendant did so, he intended to kill or do great bodily harm to the victim. Peterson asserted that there were no facts in the record from which a rational juror could infer that either element of the offense was proven. Peterson pointed to the fact that there were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, nor a confession from the defendant linking him to the crime. According to Peterson, the state's entire case was based upon rumor, speculation, and burden shifting. He also alleged that the state's witnesses were all inconsistent, motivated by financial gain, and/or severely impeached, and blamed defendant for the lack of evidence.

During review of Peterson's claim, the appellate court explored the evidence used during trial. In Illinois, a court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. First, the court observed that the medical evidence indicated that Kathleen's death was the result of murder. Kathleen had multiple injuries all over her body, which were not consistent with a slip and fall. Rather, the injuries indicated that Kathleen was involved in a struggle in which a large amount of force was applied to her body. Additionally, Kathleen's head injury was not likely from a slip and fall, and would not have caused her to accidentally drown in the bathtub.

Second, the remaining circumstantial evidence demonstrated that Peterson murdered Kathleen, and when he completed the acts that ultimately killed her, he did so with that specific intent. The circumstantial evidence showed that the defendant had motive to kill Kathleen, both because of the bitterness of their divorce and to avoid an undesirable result in the property distribution. It also established that Peterson repeatedly stated his intention to kill Kathleen, and had previously tried to hire someone else to do so. The defendant also broke into Kathleen's home in the past, giving him the opportunity to kill Kathleen. Lastly, Peterson was missing from his own residence at the time of the murder, and admitted to someone that he had killed Kathleen.

After review, the Court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peterson was guilty of first degree murder.