People v. Romanowski
2016 IL App (1st) 142360
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On May 16, 2013, Officer John McGuire found Weston Romanowski in a running car at a closed Skyway toll lane, smelled alcohol, and saw empty beer cans; Romanowski had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and required assistance exiting the vehicle.
- Officer McGuire administered three standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-legged stand); Romanowski performed poorly on each; officer arrested him and later observed belligerent, incoherent, and uncontrollable behavior at the station.
- At booking, McGuire read Romanowski the statutory "warning to motorists" describing civil license-suspension penalties for refusing chemical testing; Romanowski refused blood/breath/urine testing and had a suspended license.
- At trial the arresting officer was the sole witness; over defense objection the officer testified to the contents of the warning to motorists; the jury convicted Romanowski of aggravated DUI (no license + impaired control).
- At sentencing the court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment (with credit) and ordered a $450 public defender reimbursement fee to be deducted from bond without holding a statutory hearing on ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officer’s testimony about the contents of the statutory "warning to motorists" | Testimony is relevant circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and properly admitted | Statute only authorizes admission of the fact of refusal; warning contents are prejudicial and outside §11-501.2(c)(1) | Court affirmed admission: warning contents are relevant; not unduly prejudicial; any error harmless given strong other evidence |
| Whether testimony about the warning was admitted only to show combativeness and needed a limiting instruction | State: testimony relevant to guilt and context; combativeness separately supported | Romanowski: warning irrelevant to combativeness; trial counsel ineffective for not requesting limiting instruction | Court: warning not limited to combativeness; no limiting instruction required; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Whether legislative inaction implies Elliott decision should control | N/A (defendant argues tacit legislative acceptance of Elliott) | State: later appellate decisions (Bock, Lynn) and statutory context support broader admissibility | Court rejects inference of legislative acquiescence; follows Lynn and Bock reasoning |
| Public defender reimbursement fee imposed without hearing | State sought reimbursement and court granted fee at sentencing | Romanowski: no hearing on ability to pay, no evidence of fee amount or ability to pay, statutory hearing required within 90 days | Fee vacated: statute requires a hearing within 90 days; none occurred, so the order must be vacated (no remand for belated hearing) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Rockford v. Elliott, 308 Ill. App. 3d 735 (1999) (held probative value of warning contents outweighed by prejudice; narrow reading of §11-501.2(c)(1))
- People v. Bock, 357 Ill. App. 3d 160 (2005) (upheld admissibility of the warning’s contents as part of evidence surrounding a refusal)
- People v. Lynn, 388 Ill. App. 3d 272 (2009) (refused to follow Elliott; held warning contents relevant to defendant’s consciousness of guilt)
- People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550 (1997) (interpreting statutory requirements for hearings before ordering public-defender reimbursement)