2018 IL App (2d) 151142
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In the early morning, Officer Bond observed Nina Robledo driving with one headlight out; she pulled into a driveway and admitted her license was suspended.
- Bond smelled alcohol on Robledo, noted bloodshot/droopy eyes, and arrested her for driving on a suspended license; she agreed to testing at the station.
- After standardized observation, Robledo provided a breath sample on an Intox EC/IR-II that read 0.082; Bond testified the machine’s margin of error was ±0.005 and that the machine’s dry gas checks read 0.079 on Sept. 2 (26 days before) and Oct. 1 (3 days after).
- Robledo did not object to admission of the breath result but moved for a directed verdict arguing the margin of error meant her actual BAC could have been below 0.08.
- The jury acquitted on DUI (impairment) but convicted on the statutory per se offense (BAC ≥ 0.08); the court sentenced her to supervision and a fine. Robledo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved BAC ≥ 0.08 beyond a reasonable doubt given device margin of error | Breath result was admissible and machine met Department calibration/accuracy checks; weight for accuracy is for the jury | Machine’s ±0.005 error could make true BAC below 0.08 (as low as 0.077), so State failed to prove element beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: where device was certified and checks were within tolerance, admissibility and reliability go to the jury; a rational juror could find BAC ≥ 0.08 based on 0.082 reading |
| Whether the statutory breath-test presumption or Department standards require adjusting results by margin of error | Section 11‑501.2 validates tests performed under Department standards; legislature intended per se rule at ≥0.08 | Results should be reduced by machine error before comparing to 0.08 to prove actual BAC | Rejected: statute and regs treat properly performed breath analyses as valid; court will not require automatic down-adjustment by margin of error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lipscomb, 215 Ill. App. 3d 413 (reliability/weight of scientific evidence is for the jury)
- People v. Mehlberg, 249 Ill. App. 3d 499 (challenges to scientific accuracy go to jury unless procedures show unreliability)
- People v. Luth, 335 Ill. App. 3d 175 (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- People v. Barbic, 105 Ill. App. 2d 360 (device tested before/after arrest; errors go to trier of fact)
- People v. Eyler, 133 Ill. 2d 173 (jury weighs reliability where known limitations exist in identification technique)
- People v. Ziltz, 98 Ill. 2d 38 (legislative intent: per se liability for BAC at or above statutory limit)