People v. Romanowski
61 N.E.3d 999
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Weston Romanowski was arrested after being found in a running vehicle at a closed Skyway toll lane; officer observed alcohol odor, empty beer cans, slurred speech, and poor performance on three field sobriety tests.
- Officer McGuire administered HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-legged-stand tests, arrested defendant, and later processed him at the station where defendant was belligerent and urinated on the floor.
- Officer read the statutory "warning to motorists" informing defendant that refusal of chemical testing would result in suspension of his license; defendant refused blood/breath/urine tests.
- At trial the officer testified to both the refusal and the contents of the warning over defense objection; defense sought a mistrial which was denied.
- Jury convicted defendant of aggravated DUI (driving while under the influence and without a valid license); sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay a $450 public defender reimbursement.
- On appeal defendant challenged (1) admission of testimony about the contents of the warning to motorists and (2) the $450 public defender fee, arguing no hearing on ability to pay was held.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officer testimony about contents of "warning to motorists" | Testimony was within court's discretion and relevant circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt | Statute admitting "evidence of refusal" does not permit admission of the warning's contents; such evidence is prejudicial and irrelevant | Admission was proper; contents are relevant to refusal and not unduly prejudicial; any error would be harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Whether testimony about warning required limiting jury instruction or triggered ineffective-assistance claim | No limiting instruction required because testimony was relevant to guilt | Failure to instruct and failure to request one constituted ineffective assistance | No error in failing to give or request a limiting instruction; no basis for ineffective-assistance claim |
| Whether legislative inaction (post-Elliott amendments) indicates statute excludes warning contents | Statutory text and legislative history support allowing such evidence; later amendments do not imply acquiescence in Elliott | Legislature’s failure to amend indicates tacit acceptance of Elliott (excluding warning contents) | Rejected — legislative inaction not persuasive here; subsequent cases and statutory context support admissibility |
| Validity of $450 public defender fee without a hearing | State conceded insufficient process; fee may be remanded for a proper hearing | Fee invalid because no hearing on ability to pay was held within statutory 90-day period | Fee vacated; remand for a belated hearing denied because statute requires a hearing within 90 days and none occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garriott, 253 Ill. App. 3d 1048 (recognizing refusal to submit to chemical testing is relevant circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- City of Rockford v. Elliott, 308 Ill. App. 3d 735 (holding testimony about warning contents was prejudicial and not admissible)
- People v. Lynn, 388 Ill. App. 3d 272 (holding warning-contents testimony relevant and admissible as circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Bock, 357 Ill. App. 3d 160 (rejecting Elliott’s narrow reading; circumstances of refusal admissible)
- People v. Dinelli, 217 Ill. 2d 387 (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- People v. Warmack, 83 Ill. 2d 112 (harmless error analysis considering totality of the evidence)
- People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550 (procedural requirements for ordering reimbursement to public defender; hearing on ability to pay required)
- People v. Morgan, 197 Ill. 2d 404 (standard that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion)