THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS CZERWINSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-23-2358
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
March 21, 2025
2025 IL App (1st) 1232358-U
SIXTH DIVISION. NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 18CR12920. Honorable John Gallagher, Judge, presiding.
Presiding Justice Tailor and Justice Gamrath concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: We affirm where the circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant‘s blood alcohol concentration where the blood was drawn using proper medical procedures; the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to show that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol; and there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find defendant‘s driving under the influence was the proximate cause of the accident resulting in the deceased victim‘s death.
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 ¶ 4 On August 12, 2018, Susan Esparza and her husband Candido Esparza went for a motorcycle ride to meet friends at a bar. The bar was about 40 minutes away from their home in Blue Island, Illinois. After arriving at the motorcycle bar, Candido1 stated he had “three to four” Bud Lights. He stated that he could not remember if he and Susan went to other places and if they met up with anybody else. They left the bar, and at approximately 9:00 p.m., Thomas Czerwinski, the driver of a Jeep, made a left-hand turn in front of the motorcycle and the vehicles collided. Susan succumbed to her injuries.
¶ 5 At a bench trial, Candido testified that he did not feel intoxicated after having drunk the “three to four” Bud Lights and that the drinks were spread throughout a period of time. After hanging out, he and Susan proceeded to go home on the motorcycle. He was driving while Susan was riding on the back. At that time, it was a “little darker outside” but not pitch black. They were driving down Route 83 and saw a car going in the same direction they were facing. Route 83 has
¶ 6 Candido explained that he did not remember how fast he was driving when he started moving once again, but that he did not normally speed. The next thing he remembered was being awakened by an EMT named Andy Huffnagle. Candido stated that he knew Huffnagle because he was Susan‘s first cousin. Candido suffered broken ribs, a broken sternum, a shattered femur, and blood clots in his left leg. He went through many surgeries and was in the hospital a couple days short of a month.
¶ 7 On cross examination, Candido confirmed that he was driving down Route 83 when he noticed a car coming the other way suddenly stopped in the middle of the street. He stated that he had come to a complete stop and once the car began moving again, he started driving again as well.
¶ 8 Lauren Granata, a nanny, testified that she lived in Palos Heights on Massasoit close to Route 83. Around 9:00 p.m. on August 12, 2018, she was in her room when she heard a loud crash. She went to her window and saw car lights sitting in the street. She grabbed her phone, went outside, and saw her neighbor Ken Fry walking towards the street. She stated that her and Ken walked towards the accident and observed a man walking across the street. Lauren explained that the man was walking across the yard away from the accident. She noticed that a Jeep and motorcycle had gotten into an accident, a man was lying in the grass, and a woman lying in the street. She called 911 and approached the woman. Lauren explained that she knelt beside the
¶ 9 Joshua Cwik, a firefighter and paramedic, testified that around 9:00 p.m. on August 12, 2018, he was called to a traffic crash on Route 83. When he arrived on scene with his partner Jason Martin, he observed a motorcycle on the ground that had hit a Jeep. He also noticed two patients lying on the ground: one in the middle of the street. He stated that they treated Susan. She was unresponsive and “agonal breathing“, which is gasping for air. They gave Susan C-spine precautions, which included holding her neck and preventing any further injury. He and Martin placed her into the ambulance. Once they had treated Susan in the ambulance, they transported her to Christ Hospital.
¶ 10 Janet Ramos, a paramedic with the Chicago Fire Department testified that on August 12, 2018, she was called to a traffic crash on Route 83. She was working with a partner, Martin Cimaglia. Once they arrived on scene, they noticed Czerwinski had a laceration on his forehead and attempted to treat him. They asked him if he had any alcohol that evening, and he denied having any. They asked Czerwinski if he wanted to go to the hospital, but he refused.
¶ 11 On cross examination, Ramos stated that Czerwinski was assigned to her and Cimaglia on the scene. She explained that Czerwinski had denied alcohol use. Ramos understood everything he said, and he answered every question appropriately. Ramos noted that in her and Cimaglia‘s report, they did not suspect alcohol use; and Czerwinski did not seem to be impaired.
¶ 12 On redirect examination, Ramos stated that Czerwinski was much taller than her. She explained that she was on the scene a total of 17 minutes and a small portion of that was spent talking to Czerwinski.
¶ 14 The circuit court admitted video footage into evidence. The footage is part of the record on appeal and was reviewed by this court. Channel 15 captured the parking lot of the bar. Channel 16 captured the front door of the bar. Channel 9 captured the foyer area. Channel 13 captured the main bar, where one can see what the bartender is doing. Channel 13 captured in relevant part, Paniaguas pouring two drinks: long pours of vodka, meaning more than one shot of alcohol in each drink at 12:40:01. At 13:03:34 Paniaguas makes a drink with a single shot of vodka for Czerwinski‘s friend. At 13:05:39 Paniaguas makes two more long pours of vodka and gives the drinks to Czerwinski‘s friend. At 14:45:32 Paniaguas makes three more long pour drinks of vodka, and brings them to Czerwinski‘s table where he is seated with friends. At 18:08:08, the footage shows a friend of Czerwinski approaching the bar and from 18:11:55 to 18:12:46, the footage depicts Paniaguas making three long pour drinks and taking them to Czerwinski‘s group. At 19:14:53 Paniaguas pours two more long pours of vodka and gives them to Czerwinski and his friend. At 19:56:00 the footage shows Paniaguas making two more long pour vodka drinks and giving them to Czerwinski. The court admitted into evidence the receipt from Czerwinski‘s group‘s bill. It was $152.44 and the number of drinks were split between long pours and single pours. There were 12 long pours, four single pours, a pizza, and cheese curds.
¶ 15 On cross examination, Paniaguas testified that she would have stopped serving Czerwinski drinks if she thought he was too intoxicated. She mentioned that she was busy and could not “have
¶ 16 Jason Strong, a Chicago police officer, testified that he responded to a traffic crash around 9:00 p.m. August 12, 2018. Strong spoke with Czerwinski at the scene and noted that Czerwinski‘s speech was “kind of slurred” and he “could smell an alcoholic beverage coming from him.” Strong informed investigator Gregory Barron of his observations. Strong stated that he noticed Czerwinski walking away from the scene of the accident and yelled for him to come back. Czerwinski complied and Strong placed him in Barron‘s vehicle.
¶ 17 On cross examination, Strong noted that he had no problems understanding Czerwinski, nor did Czerwinski have problems giving him his identification. Further, Czerwinski‘s balance was not abnormal.
¶ 18 Gregory Barron, an investigator for the Cook County Sheriff‘s Police Department, testified that he worked patrol for four and a half years and investigated DUI‘s and responded to calls for service. He had done around 50 DUI‘s prior to his testimony. Czerwinski told Barron that he was headed towards Mount Greenwood and had not been drinking, but Mount Greenwood is not near Route 83 and Massasoit and the location Czerwinski was traveling was not toward Mount Greenwood. Barron stated that he was notified by Strong there was a possible scent of alcohol emanating from Czerwinski. Czerwinski was placed in the rear passenger side of Barron‘s vehicle; the windows were up, the doors were closed, and he was the only person in the vehicle. After about 5 or 6 minutes of his investigation, Barron opened the car door and noted “there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating throughout the interior of the patrol car.”
¶ 20 On cross examination, Barron explained he had performed an HGN test where he was supposed to make two passes for each of the three clues for which he was looking. Barron admitted he did not make the six passes required and did agree that a recent study showed that a head injury could alter results of the HGN test.
¶ 21 Brian Dignan, a detective with the Cook County Sheriff‘s Police Department testified that he had been with the office for 17 years. On August 12, 2018, he was tasked with drafting a search warrant for a subject that was involved in a crash where a victim had died. The search warrant was signed by a judge, and Dignan arrived at South Suburban Hospital around 12:37 a.m. on August 13, 2018. After his arrival, he met with Officer Barron, Detective Bohlsen, and the phlebotomist, Linda Cox. He was present when Cox collected the blood and urine samples from Czerwinski. He explained that the hospital had a sealed DUI test kit that was used to collect the samples and an evidence technician named Investigator Weatherly picked up the kit.
¶ 22 Linda Cox, a phlebotomist with 12 years of experience, testified that she was directed to draw blood from Czerwinski. She explained that on average she does 50 blood draws a day. She
¶ 23 On cross examination, Cox stated that she did not know who Czerwinski was and had no recollection from which arm she drew his blood. She explained that she did not know whether the blood tubes were manufactured by the same company or someone different. Further, she did not consult any manual instructions with respect to the blood draw, did not know how much blood she drew from Czerwinski, or the chemical composition of the substance at the bottom of the tubes.
¶ 24 Lindsay Simpson, an expert in toxicology and analyzing blood and urine samples, testified that evidence was submitted to her by the police department. She explained that she first received the sealed DUI kit on August 13, 2018. She tested one of the blood tubes for alcohol and explained that she tested Czerwinski‘s blood 3 times through a machine that determines blood alcohol. The first reading was 0.194, the second reading was 0.196 and the third was 0.197. She further explained that the test she used is generally accepted in the scientific community and she was trained to perform these tests. Her conclusion was that Czerwinski‘s blood alcohol concentration was 0.195 grams per deciliter.
¶ 25 On cross examination Simpson stated if she added too much “n-propanol” the results of the test would be skewed. She confirmed she did not add too much as it is added through an instrument. On redirect examination, Simpson explained that she runs quality control tests on the instrument she uses for the dilution of the blood with the n-propanol. She further explained that the instrument was working properly after she had done her tests, and the blood in this case was not clotted.
¶ 27 Craig Wilk, a police officer with the Cook County Sheriff‘s Department, testified that he is an accident reconstruction specialist. Wilk stated he investigated the crash, arriving at Route 83 around 11:00 p.m. He determined where the first contact and maximum engagement occurred from the Jeep and motorcycle‘s final resting points. He noted there was a tire mark that indicated the motorcycle was under heavy braking. He concluded that the Jeep was “spun clockwise” after being struck by the motorcycle. Wilk explained that based on his analysis, the Jeep failed to yield the right of way to the motorcycle.
¶ 28 On cross examination, Wilk testified that he did not weigh either the Jeep or motorcycle., did not measure the wheelbase reduction, but did measure the motorcycle tire marks. He stated that the speedometer of the motorcycle after the accident showed 45 miles per hour. The speed limit was 40 miles per hour. He explained that speed can be an important factor in accident investigation and the proximity between the Jeep and motorcycle at the time the Jeep made the left hand turn was “too close“.
¶ 29 On redirect examination, Wilk stated he did not weigh the vehicles because he was unable to do a momentum analysis. He clarified that the speed on the speedometer of the motorcycle was not necessarily the speed at the time of impact. He explained that had Czerwinski not been turning left, the accident would never have happened. On recross examination, Wilk stated he believed the
¶ 30 Dr. Kristin Alvarenga, a deputy medical examiner for the Cook County Medical Examiner‘s office, testified that Susan‘s cause of death was blunt-force injuries due to the collision of the motorcycle and the Jeep. She noted that in her opinion, the death of Susan was an accident.
¶ 31 Ronald Henson, an expert in standardized field sobriety tests, blood collection procedures, and behavioral manifestations associated with alcohol consumption, testified that the HGN test should not be performed when head trauma is involved. He stated that the HGN test was administered improperly because Czerwinski was facing flashing lights, the officer did five passes instead of thirteen, and the officer did not administer a vertical nystagmus test. Further, after blood was drawn, the vial should be inverted 8 to 10 times immediately, and a person failing to invert the blood is not using a proper medical technique. He stated that manifestations of a person with a .18 or higher blood alcohol level would include the individual stumbling, having difficulty walking, comprehension issues, slurred speech, and emotional instability.
¶ 32 On cross examination, Henson reviewed videos of Czerwinski from the OTB and stated that there was missing documentation and information associated with the blood draw to determine its reliability. He admitted that not all drunk people act the same but there is “some masking that can‘t be done.” He stated an alcoholic compared to a person drinking for the first time would act differently, and generally, the more times you drink the higher your tolerance becomes. However, your manifestations would not change if you were at a 0.19 BAC level whether you were an alcoholic or first time drinker.
¶ 33 Roger Barrette, a traffic crash investigator and reconstructionist, testified that the motorcycle made impact with the Jeep on its right rear tire. He indicated that the tests he used
¶ 34 On cross examination, Barette admitted he did not review the scene, talk to witnesses, Wilk, or Czerwinski. He stated that it was his opinion that “the accident happened by the Jeep turning left and the motorcycle crashing into the back of the Jeep.”
¶ 35 After hearing the evidence and closing arguments, the court found Czerwinski guilty of all counts and sentenced him to six years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II. JURISDICTION
¶ 36 ¶ 37 Czerwinski was sentenced on November 21, 2023. His notice of appeal was timely filed on December 14, 2023. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution (
III. ANALYSIS
¶ 38 ¶ 39 On appeal, Czerwinski argues that (1) The trial court erred by considering the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) evidence when the blood draw was not done using proper medical technique; (2) the State failed to prove he drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; and (3) the court erred by finding he was a proximate cause of the death of Susan Esparza.
A. Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Evidence
¶ 40 ¶ 41 First, Czerwinski argues the circuit court erred because it considered the BAC evidence where the blood draw was not done using proper medical technique. The State asserts that this
¶ 42 Specifically, Czerwinski asserts that the trained phlebotomist did not invert the vials of blood immediately.
¶ 43 These standards are established in title 20 of the Illinois Administrative Code. See
¶ 45 ¶ 46
B. Drove a Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol
¶ 47 Next, Czerwinski contends the State failed to prove he drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He argues that a review of the evidence will indicate that he was not intoxicated. The State asserts that the circuit court found the evidence of Czerwinski‘s intoxication was overwhelming, and that this court should not reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.
¶ 48 A conviction will be overturned only where “the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory” that there is reasonable doubt as to the defendant‘s guilt. People v. Wright, 2017 IL 119561, ¶ 70.
¶ 49 Czerwinski relies on People v. Barham, 337 Ill. App. 3d 1121 (5th Dist. 2003) to argue that the evidence was insufficient to find he was intoxicated while driving. In Barham, the court reversed defendant‘s conviction of reckless homicide holding, “There is no question that defendant consumed alcohol, but the quantity was not established. *** There is no evidence that defendant‘s physical and mental abilities were impaired by alcohol at the time of the accident.”
¶ 50 Barham is distinguishable because here, the record supports the contention that Czerwinski was under the influence of alcohol and in actual physical control of a vehicle. More than one officer testified to the smell of alcohol on Czerwinski. Also, surveillance footage and receipts from the OTB proves Czerwinski was with a group of friends who ordered 16 alcoholic drinks. More importantly, his BAC was “0.195 grams per deciliter” and the legal limit is 0.08. See
¶ 52
C. Proximate Cause of Death
¶ 53 Finally, Czerwinski contends the trial court erred in finding that he was a proximate cause of the death of Susan Esparza. Essentially, Czerwinski contests the sufficiency of the evidence that supported his conviction.
¶ 54 In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, (1979). A conviction will only be reversed where the evidence is “so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant‘s guilt.” People v. Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d 236, 259 (2001).
¶ 55 Our Supreme Court held in People v. Hudson, 222 Ill. 2d 392, 401 (2006) that proximate cause is based in cause in fact and legal cause. Cause in fact is established if there is a “reasonable certainty” that defendant‘s actions caused injury or damage. Kramer v. Szczepaniak, 2018 IL App (1st) 171411. “A defendant‘s acts are a legal cause only if they are ‘so closely tied to the plaintiffs
¶ 56 This court has held that when an aggravated DUI charge under
¶ 57 In this case, the circuit court found a causal link between the physical act of driving and the victim‘s death. See
¶ 58 We find that the circuit court did not err when it found a causal link between Susan‘s death and Czerwinski‘s driving because it is undisputed that Czerwinski was the driver of the Jeep that collided with the Esparza‘s motorcycle. Furthermore, surveillance footage of Czerwinski at the OTB showed that he and a group of friends were drinking alcohol that was also confirmed by the
IV. CONCLUSION
¶ 59 ¶ 60 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
¶ 61 Affirmed.