People v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 06 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 12512,12512 |
| Citation | 23 Ill.App.3d 398,318 N.E.2d 743 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Leroy CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
David V. Munnis, Champaign, for defendant-appellant.
James R. Burgess, Jr., State's Atty., Urbana, for plaintiff-appellee; Robert G. Frederick, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.
Defendant, Dennis Leroy Crawford, appeals from his conviction after a jury trial of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of section 11--501(a) of the Motor Vehicle Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--501) and from a sentence imposed of $100.00. Defendant raises the following issues for resolution by this court: 1) Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress, 2) Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a breathalyzer test, 3) Whether defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, 4) Whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony of defendant with regard to a request for an additional breach test after he was arrested, 5) Whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of defendant's lawyer with regard to a request by him for an additional breath test for defendant, and 6) Whether the trial court erred in restricting defense counsel's closing argument.
In the early morning hours of December 4, 1972, the defendant, Edward Schmidt, and Paula Hitler left the American Legion Hall in Champaign, Illinois. It had been snowing and sleeting and the roads were icy. Because Paula had not driven on ice before, it was agreed that Edward would drive her car and defendant would follow driving Edward's car. On the way to Paula's house the two cars stopped and parked and were observed by an unmarked police car driven by Officer Buckner. He proceeded to follow the vehicles for a short distance and then called for a marked car driven by Officer Wilhelm. Both police cars then followed defendant's car before Officer Wilhelm finally stopped defendant's car and placed defendant under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Defendant was taken to the Champaign police station and given a physical performance and a breathalyzer test.
At the trial on April 12, 1973, Officer Buckner testified that he observed defendant driving erratically, that defendant was closely following the vehicle in front of him, and that defendant was honking his horn repeatedly. He further testified that defendant was swerving his car back and forth and in two places actually hit the curb. He also stated that he observed defendant being placed under arrest and that defendant was very unsteady in his walk and his speech was unclear and confused. Officer Wilhelm testified that he observed defendant's car tailgating the car in front of him, honking, and skidding from side to side. He further testified that he stopped defendant and placed him under arrest. He stated that he smelled alcohol on his breath, that defendant stumbled as he exited the car, that his walk was unstable, and that defendant appeared glassy-eyed. He stated that at the station defendant was wobbly on the balance test, that he was unsteady on the walking and turning tests, that he missed completely on the finger to nose test, and that he was unsteady on the coin test.
Wayne Meeker, a Champaign police officer, testified that he has had special training in the administration of breathalyzer tests, that he has given many tests in the past, and that he has a special permit from the Department of Public Health to administer these tests. He stated that on the evening in question he gave the breath test to defendant after receiving defendant's written permission. He stated that the first test was given to defendant at 2:20 a.m., that the second test was given at 2:35 a.m., and that for 20 minutes prior to the first test he observed that defendant did not eat, smoke, regurgitate, or drink, but he did not know whether or not defendant had belched. He testified that the machine used was a Smith and Wesson Breathalyzer, model 1000. He also identified Peoples' Exhibits 10 and 11 as defendant's test results taken on the evening in question and stated that he gave defendant copies of the test results. He further stated that defendant received a .19 on both tests, that figure measuring the amount of alcohol in defendant's blood. Richard Bright, a certified breathalyzer equipment inspector for the Department of Public Health, testified that on November 16, 1972, he inspected the breathalyzer machine at the Champaign police station and found the machine to be functioning satisfactorily. Peoples' Exhibit 13 was admitted into evidence and showed that the model 1000 machine at the Champaign police station was tested on November 16, 1972, and was certified as accurate and within limits prescribed by the rules and regulations of the Department of Public Health. He further testified that the ampules used in the model 1000 are first tested by the department in that before the ampules can be sold the manufacturer must send a sample to the department for such testing. He also stated that he is licensed by the department as a certified breathalyzer examiner. That certificate was then admitted into evidence as Peoples' Exhibit No. 16.
The State then made a motion out of the presence of the jury that there be no references made by defense counsel or defense witnesses to alleged requests for or failure to secure additional tests. The court denied the motion. Defendant testified that he did not tailgate the car in front of him, that he never lost traction or hit a curb, and that he did not honk his horn on the evening in question. He also stated that he did not require assistance in getting out of the car. He further testified that he had just left the American Legion Hall where he had four and a half drinks. He stated that he called a lawyer, Robert Auler, when he reached the Champaign police station and that Officer Wilhelm also talked with Auler. He stated that he then had a conversation with Wilhelm and that he proceeded to take the breathalyzer and other tests. He further stated that after the tests he said nothing to Officer Meeker or Officer Wilhelm and that the only other conversation he had with any of the police officers was when he asked an officer for a drink of water. The court then outside the presence of the jury allowed a motion by the State that Robert Auler not be allowed to testify concerning any legal advice given defendant concerning the taking of additional tests. The defense counsel then made an offer of proof that Robert Auler would testify that he advised defendant to request an additional test at his own expense, and that he told the officer personally that after defendant is tested he should be given an additional test. The court then denied the offer of proof. Robert Auler, a Champaign attorney, then testified that he had a conversation with defendant on the evening in question. Edward Schmidt, the driver of the car defendant was following, testified that defendant was not tailgating him or honking, and that he did not see defendant swerving or hitting the curb. The jury then returned a verdict finding defendant guilty as charged.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress citing the lack of probable cause on the part of the offices in making the arrest. Section 107--2(c) of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 107--2(c)) states that a police officer may arrest an individual when 'He has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense.' At the hearing on the motion to suppress defendant testified that it was icy on the night in question. Edward Schmidt testified that he was not followed very closely by defendant. Officer Buckner testified that he observed defendant on the evening in question driving very erratically, that defendant closely followed the car in front of him, that defendant constantly blew his horn, that defendant hit the curb, and that defendant was swerving back and forth. He stated that he then called for a marked car to make the stop. The marked car driven by Officer Wilhelm then arrived and also followed defendant's vehicle. He stated that defendant continued his erratic driving and was stopped by Wilhelm and himself. On cross-examination he stated that defendant was swerving and not simply sliding on the ice. The court then stated that the issue was whether there was probable cause to make the arrest and denied the motion to suppress. We agree and hold that the testimony heard on the motion to suppress clearly supports the trial judge's finding of probable cause, and that the officers clearly had reasonable grounds to believe that an offense was being committed.
Defendant next contends that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the results of the breathalyzer test. Section 11--501(d) of the Motor Vehicle Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--501) provides:
(d) Chemical analysis of the person's blood or breath to be considered valid under this Section must be performed according to uniform standards adopted by the State Department of Public Health, in cooperation with the Superintendent of State Highway Police, and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by that Department for this purpose. The State Department of Public Health is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods to ascertain the qualification and competence of individuals to conduct such analysis and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the State Department of Public Health.
Section 11--501.1(a) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--501.1) further states:
(a) Any person who, after September 30, 1972, drives a motor vehicle anywhere within this State thereby consents, under the terms of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Orth
...as the tests given to the motorist. People v. Winfield (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 668, 672, 332 N.E.2d 634; People v. Crawford (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 398, 402-03, 318 N.E.2d 743; see also People v. Black (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 1050, 40 Ill.Dec. 322, 406 N.E.2d It only remains to consider what evid......
-
People v. Bertsch
...of the evidence. The State cites People v. Johnson (1986), 148 Ill.App.3d 4, 101 Ill.Dec. 699, 499 N.E.2d 66, and People v. Crawford (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 398, 318 N.E.2d 743, for the proposition that because belching is not prohibited under R. 510.60(a), it cannot be used to invalidate a p......
-
People v. Whipple
...Ill.2d 326, 125 Ill.Dec. 182, 530 N.E.2d 210 (1988); People v. Winfield, 30 Ill.App.3d 668, 332 N.E.2d 634 (1975); People v. Crawford, 23 Ill.App.3d 398, 318 N.E.2d 743 (1974). Additionally, the refusal to allow the defendant to speak with an attorney during this 20-minute period does not c......
-
People v. Clark, 2-87-1155
...sheet can be identified as the tests given to the motorist. People v. Winfield (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 668, 672 ; People v. Crawford (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 398, 402-03 ; see also People v. Black (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 1050 [40 Ill.Dec. 322, 406 N.E.2d Our primary concern is with the first requi......