People v. Smith, 43 N.E.3d 1026

Defendant Marc Smith was convicted of driving on a suspended license and driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.08+; the BAC 0.099 was at issue.
Trial admitted Breathalyzer results over defense objections based on a 62‑day accuracy certification requirement under state regulations.
Electronic certification from Illinois State Police claimed tests on March 1 and April 1, 2010; no testimony connected the data to accuracy within tolerance.
A key foundational issue was whether the Breathalyzer machine was certified as accurate within 62 days prior to the test.
Defense highlighted lack of testimony from ISP on accuracy results and the absence of interpretation of the electronic certification’s numeric data.
Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the Breathalyzer result was improperly admitted and the evidence was insufficient without it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Breathalyzer result was properly admissible.	State argues machine was certified as accurate within 62 days.	Smith contends no admissible accuracy certification within 62 days; data uninterpretable.	Remand for new trial; Breathalyzer result not properly admitted.

People v. Clairmont, 2011 IL App (2d) 100924 (Ill. App. 2d 2011) (breath test accuracy foundations and regulatory standards)
People v. Caruso, 201 Ill. App. 3d 930 (Ill. App. 3d 1990) (foundational requirements for admissibility of breath tests)
Lopez, 229 Ill.2d 322 (Ill. 2008) (remand when improperly admitted evidence could sustain conviction)
Olivera, 164 Ill.2d 382 (Ill. 1995) (double jeopardy considerations in remand vs outright reversal)
Raney, 324 Ill. App. 3d 703 (Ill. App. 1st 2001) (outright reversal not automatic for improper admission when remand possible)