2013 IL App (3d) 120113
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Veronica A. Love was charged with DUI under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2).
- Blood test at the hospital showed a serum BAC of .190; the hospital report was admitted as a business record.
- The court judicially noticed the conversion factor 1.18 for serum to whole-blood BAC and informed the jury via a non-IPI instruction.
- The jury instruction included a calculation showing a resulting BAC of .161, based on the serum level and 1.18 factor.
- Defendant objected to the instruction as improper and argued the State failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Conviction reversed and remanded for a new trial due to instructional error related to judicial notice and conversion-factor calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conversion-factor instruction violated Rule 201 | Love argues the instruction improperly advised the jury on the conversion factor. | Love contends the instruction should have warned the jury it was not required to adopt the factor. | Instruction error; not harmless. |
| Whether the error requires reversal or mere retrial | State contends evidence suffices even with the error. | Love asserts guilt cannot be affirmed beyond reasonable doubt due to instructional error. | Conviction reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
| Whether the State proved DUI beyond a reasonable doubt without the conversion factor | State argues testimony and BAC evidence establish intoxication. | Love claims insufficient proof of intoxication without the conversion-factor calculation. | Evidence sufficient to support guilt; nonetheless remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53 (Ill. 2008) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; admissibility of judicial notice)
- People v. Thoman, 329 Ill. App. 3d 1216 (Ill. App. 2002) (juries may be instructed on judicially noticed facts)
- Rivera v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmlessness standard for instructional error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error quantum for evidentiary errors)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (double-jeopardy considerations on retrial)
- People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (Ill. 1985) (sufficiency of evidence standard in Illinois)
- People v. Utsinger, 2013 IL App (3d) 110536 (Ill. App. 3d 2013) (Rule 604(b) admissibility and appellate review of guilty finding)
- People v. Diaz, 377 Ill. App. 3d 339 (Ill. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence admissibility in DUI)
- People v. Jones, 214 Ill. 2d 187 (Ill. 2005) (consciousness of guilt evidence)
- People v. Elliott, 337 Ill. App. 3d 275 (Ill. App. 2003) (driving-under-influence evidence standards)
- People v. Hires, 396 Ill. App. 3d 315 (Ill. App. 2009) (notation on intoxication proof)