delivered the opinion of the court:
Fоllowing a bench trial, defendant, Hans Kolb, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving on the sidewalk, and negligent driving. Defendant was sentenced to two years’ conditionаl discharge, 30 days in the Cook County Department of Corrections, a $490 fine, and attendance at a victim impact session. On appeal, there are two issues for review: (1) whether the State proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. We affirm.
On July 3, 1991, around 10:40 p.m, a Chevrolet Trackеr wagon smashed into three cars parked outside Billy Lou’s Lounge located at 4152 N. Lincoln Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Ralph Knebelsberger, whose car got damaged by the Tracker, tеstified that he parked his car in front of the bar around 10 p.m. and was sitting at the bar when he heard a loud crash. He ran outside to see what happened. He was outside around 10 seсonds after he heard the crash and saw defendant’s Tracker on the sidewalk. Knebelsberger testified he saw defendant on the driver side and a woman on the passenger side of defendant’s vehicle. Knebelsberger and two other people grabbed defendant’s arms and helped him out of the vehicle. Defendant was "pretty shook up and he smelled of аlcoholic beverages, very unsteady.”
June Schwebke, another patron at Billy Lou’s Lounge that night, testified that she thought Knebelsberger might have been the first or second person outside after the crash. Schwebke also observed a woman holding a bottle of wine trying to leave the scene by hailing a cab, but she was not allowed to do so by people at the scene.
Officer Pike testified she saw three parked cars damaged by a Tracker that was facing the wrong way on the sidewalk. The officer talked to defendant at the sсene for 15 minutes. Defendant told the officer that he was the driver of the Tracker and that he was not injured. Officer Pike observed that defendant was wobbling, his eyes were watery and bloоdshot and he was confused. The officer also stated that from two feet away defendant had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. Defendant, howevеr, refused to take a breathalyzer test or perform field sobriety tests. In addition, the officer testified that based on her personal and professional experience she concluded that defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Officer Pike further testified that when she arrived at the scene there was a woman in the custody of the tactical officers.
Defendant testified that he had hosted a party that evening. Defendant had 8 to 10 people at his house. Among those people was Sheila King, whom defеndant had never seen before. Defendant did not know whether she had arrived with one of the guests or whether she had just walked in. King told defendant that her mother had cancer and was not answering the phone so she wanted to go and check on her mother’s condition. Defendant offered King his vehicle to drive to her mother’s home a few blocks away. He did not offer to drive because his license was suspended. Since defendant did not know King, however, he went with her in the vehicle. At the time, defendant was barefoot, was wearing a pair of shorts and a T-shirt, and did not have his wallet with him. King was not familiar with the stick shift so defendant had to instruct her how to operate it. Near the tavern, two blocks from defendant’s house, he heard a big noise аnd thought one or two tires blew out. The Tracker, which was going southbound, spun around and ended up northbound on the sidewalk hitting parked cars. The Tracker’s passenger door was jammed аgainst one of the damaged cars.
Defendant further testified that at the moment of impact, King jumped out of the Tracker and ran down the street trying to flag a cab. Because King hаd exited leaving the motor running, defendant slid to the driver’s side, put the car in gear and turned the key off. Defendant then exited through the driver’s side. Defendant denied being helped out of the vehiсle. Defendant also denied telling the officer that he was the driver of the Tracker.
Maria Rajaakovich, defendant’s housekeeper for three years, testified that she gave King the keys to the Tracker. Although the housekeeper could not see who was driving as the Tracker exited defendant’s garage, she saw that defendant was on the passenger side.
The trial court found defendant guilty. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. At the hearing on the motion for a new trial defendant testified thаt around March 1992, King moved out of State and he could not locate her. Defendant therefore placed an advertisement in a neighborhood newspaper in an attеmpt to locate another witness. The advertisement ran monthly from March 1992 until November 1992. Several people responded to the advertisement, but Jason Daniels was the only caller defendant believed had actually seen the crash. According to defendant, he was aware of Daniels as a new witness as of August 1992 and informed defense counsel of his еxistence three or four times while the case was pending. Defense counsel admitted to the trial court that the potential new witness’ testimony would simply corroborate defеndant’s trial testimony. The court denied the motion.
On appeal, defendant’s first contention is that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry upon judicial review of the sufficiency of the evidence is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found thе essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) (Jackson v. Virginia (1979),
The trier of fact is in a better position to determine credibility because we are unable to observe the demeanor of the witnesses; therefore, absent evidence so contrary to the verdict as to cause a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. (People v. Cooper (1987),
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion fоr a new trial. The denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. (Cooper,
Defense counsel stated that Daniels would corroborate defendant’s testimony and lend further credibility to his testimony. The motion for a new trial alleged that Daniels’ testimony would be "that he witnessed the accident, saw a female blaсk exit the driver’s seat, saw Mr. Kolb slide over from the passenger seat to the driver’s seat, saw Mr. Kolb turn off the vehicle, and saw Mr. Kolb exit the driver’s door as the passenger door was blocked.” After reviewing the record, we find that defendant testified to those facts at trial. Defendant’s housekeeper also testified that King was in the driver’s seat. Therefore, Daniels’ testimony would be merely cumulative. Additionally, defendant cannot establish due diligence because defendant knew of the existence of Daniels as a potential witness two months before the trial and did not secure his testimony at that time.
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
TULLY and CERDA, JJ., concur.