People v. Horine
92 N.E.3d 523
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 23, 2016, Alex Horine was cited for DUI; Officer Finke filed a sworn report stating Horine refused or failed testing and describing indicia of intoxication. The Secretary of State issued a statutory summary suspension.
- Horine filed a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension, alleging among other things that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe he was driving under the influence.
- At the rescission hearing, Officer Jeremy Cunningham testified he interviewed a passenger/witness, Kaylie Bakalar. On cross-examination the State sought to elicit what Kaylie told the officer; defense objected as hearsay and the trial court sustained the objection.
- The State’s attempts to admit a surveillance video also failed for lack of foundation/chain of custody. The trial court granted Horine’s petition to rescind.
- The State moved to reconsider, arguing the witness statements were admissible at a rescission (probable-cause) hearing to show the officer’s knowledge and investigatory steps; the trial court denied reconsideration.
- The appellate court concluded the trial court erred as a matter of law in sustaining the hearsay objection because hearsay is admissible at rescission/motion-to-suppress style hearings to show the officer’s state of mind and the information he possessed, but affirmed the judgment based on the State’s forfeiture of that argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether out-of-court statements by a nontestifying witness to the arresting officer are admissible at a statutory summary-suspension rescission hearing to show the officer's knowledge/investigatory steps | Admissible — offered not for truth but to show the officer's knowledge, state of mind, and why he reasonably believed Horine was the driver | Inadmissible hearsay — statements offered for the truth that Horine was the driver and thus should be excluded | Court: Such hearsay is admissible at rescission/probable-cause hearings to show the information available to the officer; but affirmed overall because the State forfeited the argument below |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cameron, 189 Ill. App. 3d 998 (1989) (officer may describe investigatory steps but not the substance of conversations with nontestifying witnesses at trial)
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (2000) (hearsay is admissible at a statutory summary-suspension rescission hearing/motion-to-suppress context)
- People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545 (2008) (probable-cause analysis for statutory-suspension rescission uses totality-of-the-circumstances and considers facts known to officer at time of arrest)