Village of Bull Valley, Illinois v. Winterpacht, 968 N.E.2d 160

Defendant Paquita Winterpacht charged with driving with a blood alcohol level 0.08+ (0.08 or above) along with DUI and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident.
Blood alcohol content measured at about 0.182 two hours after driving.
Two other charges: driving under the influence and failure to reduce speed; jury acquitted those but convicted of 0.08+.
Defense asserted no extrapolation testimony showed BAC at the time of driving; argued insufficient evidence.
Two hours post-incident test showed BAC over twice the limit; court allowed inference that BAC at driving time was similar or higher.
Appellate Court affirmed conviction, holding extrapolation not required when test result is substantially above the limit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of 0.08+ BAC at driving time without extrapolation?	State argues extrapolation not needed when test above limit.	Winterpacht argues extrapolation required to prove BAC at driving time.	Yes; sufficient evidence without extrapolation.

People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (1985) (sufficiency review standard; not retrying the case)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (limits on appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
Newman, 163 Ill. App. 3d 865 (1987) (extrapolation not always required when delay; weight considerations)
Malik, 113 Ill. App. 3d 206 (1983) (absorption rates; extrapolation not required when BAC above limit)
Rice v. Merchants National Bank, 213 Ill. App. 3d 790 (1991) (extrapolation used where BAC at test is below limit)
Petraski v. Thedos, 382 Ill. App. 3d 22 (2008) (cross-examination; concerns about alcohol content facts may be raised)
People v. Newman, 163 Ill. App. 3d 865 (1987) (discusses weight of evidence with delays between driving and testing)
Kappas, 120 Ill. App. 3d 123 (1983) (early authority on evidence timing between driving and test)