People v. KORZENEWSKI
361 Ill. Dec. 90
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- August 30, 2009 traffic stop leads to charges for aggravated DUI, suspended license, and drug paraphernalia possession.
- Defendant pleads guilty to counts II and III and goes to trial on count I.
- Defense moves in limine to exclude HGN testimony; argues prejudicial value outweighs probative value per McKown I/II.
- Trial proceeds with HGN testimony admitted; defense cross-examines but does not object to foundation.
- Jury convicts of aggravated DUI (count I); sentencing imposes 5 years, $133 restitution, and concurrent 4-year term plus $750 fine on other counts.
- On appeal, defendant challenges HGN foundation and restitution; the State contends forfeiture and proper restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/foundation of HGN testimony | Korzenewski preserved McKown II issues by citation; foundation failure argued. | HGN foundation not properly laid; procedural defects and noncompliance with McKown II. | Forfeited foundation issue; plain-error review available. |
| Restitution authorization for Decatur police recovery | Restitution properly ordered under Vehicle Code or Unified Code provisions. | Restitution not authorized by statute for routine traffic stop; improper. | Restitution vacated; not authorized under 11-501.01(i); affirmed cost assessment. |
| Preservation of HGN issue given in limine/posttrial motions | Issue preserved via McKown references in limine; trial record adequate to cure errors. | No proper preservation; acquiescence during trial. | Issue forfeited due to lack of preservation; plain-error review available. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKown (McKown II), 236 Ill.2d 278 (Ill. 2007) (establishes Frye standard for HGN and solid foundation requirements)
- People v. McKown (McKown I), 226 Ill.2d 245 (Ill. 2007) (HGN generally accepted; outlines testing protocol and foundation)
- People v. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d 401 (Ill. 1993) (preservation of foundation issues when raised pretrial and posttrial)
- People v. Durgan, 346 Ill.App.3d 1121 (Ill. App. 2004) (acquiescence doctrine; when defense invites admission, foundation issues waived)
- People v. Brown, 319 Ill.App.3d 89 (Ill. App. 2001) (preservation requirements for trial objections)