Terrence J. Lavin
Terrence J. Lavin

A state appeals panel Wednesday affirmed the convictions of William Balfour, the man a jury found guilty of murdering three of actress and singer Jennifer Hudson’s relatives in 2008.

The 1st District Appellate Court heard oral arguments in the case just two weeks ago, when Balfour’s attorneys argued there was no physical evidence to prove guilt without a reasonable doubt.

In a 28-page opinion by Justice Terrence J. Lavin, the panel found that Cook County prosecutors did not need physical evidence to add to the 11 days of other testimony in their case.

“Defendant would have this court focus almost exclusively on the ‘fact’ that the [s]tate did not offer forensic evidence that unequivocally tied him to the murders, as if that were controlling. It is not,” Lavin wrote. “Despite these urgent arguments, it is axiomatic that the absence of forensic evidence does not equate to reasonable doubt in all cases.”

Balfour — who was married to Julia Hudson, the sister of the famous performer — was found guilty in May 2012 of killing Julia’s mother, Darnell Donerson; her brother, Jason Hudson; and her 7-year-old son, Julian King, during an October 2008 home invasion.

Prosecutors alleged Balfour was jealous that his estranged wife was dating another man. After waiting for her to leave for work, he entered the Hudsons’ Englewood home and shot Donerson and Jason Hudson.

Prosecutors alleged Balfour then took Julian away in Jason Hudson’s SUV. Three days after the adults’ bodies were found, the SUV was discovered on the West Side with Julian’s body under a curtain in the back seat, dead from a gunshot wound to his head.

In a May 2012 trial before Cook County Circuit Judge Charles P. Burns, a jury convicted Balfour on three counts of first-degree murder, one count of home invasion, one count of residential burglary, one count of aggravated kidnapping and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle.

Burns sentenced Balfour to three consecutive life sentences plus an additional 120 years.

On appeal, the panel rejected several elements of Balfour’s arguments that the convictions should be overturned. It first addressed a claim that his cellphone data was searched without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Lavin wrote that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence establishing probable cause to justify the search. Police at the crime scene were told of Balfour’s previous threats and knew he was on the Hudsons’ street about an hour before shots were fired. There was also an ongoing search for Julian and the SUV.

“The fact that the police used cellphone technology as an aid in this effort after learning all of the above information does not in any way provide defendant for a legal basis to contest the results of the search of his person that was conducted,” Lavin wrote.

The panel also disagreed with Balfour’s contention that allowing Jennifer Hudson to testify was irrelevant and prejudicial.

Lavin agreed with the state’s theory that Jennifer Hudson — Balfour’s sister-in-law and school classmate — could provide proper testimony establishing Balfour’s intent to kill his wife’s family.

“Suffice it to say that the fact that Jennifer is a well-known singer and actress does not disqualify her from testifying about relevant issues in a case involving the death of her family members,” Lavin wrote. “In addition, any risk of prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of her testimony.”

Lavin also wrote that the defense tried to “get a lot of mileage” from Hudson’s celebrity to develop the theory that police were desperate to pin a high-profile murder case on Balfour.

Turning to sufficiency of prosecutors’ evidence, Lavin wrote that the panel would not substitute its judgment for the jury’s, whose job it was to determine witnesses’ credibility and resolve conflicts in testimony.

The defense’s theory at trial was that the murders were done by someone else, as a result of Jason Hudson’s drug-dealing operation from the home. Balfour suggested that the lack of eyewitness testimony about any killers entering or leaving the Hudson house at the time of the crime showed the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt his responsibility.

Balfour also contended that there were no drugs or cash found by police because they were taken by the would-be killer.

“Speculation that another person might have committed an offense does not necessarily raise reasonable doubt,” Lavin wrote. “These arguments, though factually and legally anorectic, were presented to and rejected by a jury which was evidently more persuaded by the voluminous evidence tying defendant to these crimes.”

The panel was not convinced that inconsistency with a medical examiner’s testimony on Julian’s time of death and the prosecutors’ timeline undermined the prosecution’s case.

“The jury is not required to accept any possible explanation compatible with defendant’s innocence and elevate it to the status of reasonable doubt,” Lavin wrote.

Justices Aurelia Pucinski and Michael B. Hyman concurred in the opinion.

Balfour was represented by Assistant Appellate Defender Darrel F. Oman.

“In all likelihood, we’ll do a petition for rehearing,” Oman said.

He said the panel’s opinion did not address several of his arguments — including that there was no evidence tying Balfour to the murder of Julian and that a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California requires warrants for searches of cellphone data.

The state was represented by Cook County Assistant State’s Attorneys Peter D. Fischer and Alan J. Spellberg.

In a written statement, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita M. Alvarez said she is pleased with the ruling.

“Despite a hard-fought trial and appeal, the court found absolutely no error whatsoever in the conviction,” Alvarez said.

The case is People v. William Balfour, 2015 IL App (1st) 122325.