2015 IL App (1st) 122306
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- 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.
Issues
| 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. |
Key Cases Cited
- 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)