People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 15 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 99815.,99815. |
| Citation | 218 Ill.2d 125,842 N.E.2d 714 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. James S. JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gregory L. Ryan, Urbana, for appellant.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, and John C. Piland, State's Attorney, Urban (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Linda D. Woloshin and Katherine D. Saunders, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
In December 2003, defendant James "Steven" Johnson was tried before a jury in the circuit court of Champaign County for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2002). During opening and closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that defendant, by refusing to take a breath test, had failed to prove to the arresting officer that he was not guilty of the charged offense. The jury found defendant guilty and, in a divided opinion, the appellate court upheld the conviction. 353 Ill.App.3d 954, 289 Ill.Dec. 433, 819 N.E.2d 1233. We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal and now affirm the judgment of the appellate court.
The facts of this case are undisputed. At about 4 p.m., on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, defendant met with a group of friends at the Lake of the Woods Golf Course in Mahomet, Illinois, for his weekly golf game. One of defendant's golfing friends lived in a home situated along the golf course, near the sixth hole. Around 5 p.m. defendant reached the sixth hole and, as was his habit, walked to this friend's home, where he made himself a mixed drink of rum and cola, which he then took with him on the course. The golf game finished sometime around 8 p.m. and defendant then drove to a restaurant and bar called Hide-Away in the Woods (the Hide-Away), where he and his golfing friends customarily met for postgame food and drinks and to "tally up." Defendant stayed at the Hide-Away until about 9:30 p.m. and consumed two more mixed drinks of rum and cola while he was there. Shortly thereafter, defendant was stopped by an officer of the Mahomet police department and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), in violation of section 11-501(a)(2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2002)).
Defendant contested the charge and a jury trial was held. At trial, the prosecutor made an opening statement in which he outlined the evidence he planned to present. At the end of this statement, the prosecutor made the following remarks:
Defense counsel made no objection to anything the prosecutor said. After defendant gave his own opening statement, the State presented its only witness, Mahomet Police Officer David Parsons. Officer Parsons testified that, on April 30, 2003, at approximately 9:45 p.m., he activated his lights and initiated a traffic stop after he witnessed the truck defendant was driving move past the center line into the oncoming lane on three occasions in a 10- to 15-second period. Defendant responded immediately, appropriately pulling to the side of the road. Officer Parsons then approached the driver's side of defendant's vehicle and asked defendant for his license and insurance card. Officer Parsons testified that he immediately smelled a strong odor of alcohol, noticed that defendant's eyes were bloodshot, and detected a slight slurring of speech. In addition, Officer Parsons noted that defendant gave him a registration card instead of an insurance card, as requested, although defendant quickly complied once the error was pointed out. Officer Parsons testified that he asked defendant if he had been drinking and defendant admitted that he had "a couple."
Officer Parsons testified that he asked defendant to exit his vehicle to take some field sobriety tests. The first test he had defendant take was the "walk and turn" test. Officer Parsons testified that he told defendant to listen carefully as he explained the test and to watch closely as he demonstrated its execution. After he explained and demonstrated the test, defendant attempted it. Office Parsons testified that defendant did not follow the instructions — defendant walked "normally" instead of heel-to-toe, as instructed. Furthermore, defendant did not turn on one foot or keep his arms at his sides. According to Officer Parsons, the test permits a person to raise his arms only 6 inches, but defendant lifted his arms about 14 inches away from his body in order to maintain his balance. For the above reasons, the officer regarded defendant's performance a failure.
Officer Parsons then gave defendant a second test, the "one-leg stand" test. This test requires the subject to stand on one leg, with arms to the side, for the count of 30 seconds. After hearing the instructions and watching Officer Parsons demonstrate the test, defendant attempted this test but put his foot down after only eight seconds. Officer Parsons also noted that defendant swayed and lifted his arms to keep his balance. Accordingly, defendant's performance on the second test was deemed a failure as well.
Officer Parsons testified that, because of his observation of defendant's improper lane usage, because defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and slightly slurred speech, and because defendant failed the two field sobriety tests, he believed defendant to be impaired by alcohol and, thus, placed defendant under arrest. Defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of the squad car. Officer Parsons noted that defendant commented at this time that he didn't know why he was being arrested because he was not "that drunk."
Officer Parsons further testified that while they sat in the squad car waiting for a tow truck to come and impound defendant's vehicle, he asked defendant whether he would be willing to take a breath-alcohol test. He testified that, in conjunction with this request, he read to defendant the "Warning to Motorists," as required by state law. The "Warning to Motorists" was then read into the record by Officer Parsons for the benefit of the jury. Officer Parsons testified that he did not simply read the warning to defendant, he explained it to him, informing defendant that even if he "blew over point 8," that is, if he failed the test by being over the legal limit, his driver's license suspension would be for a shorter period than if he did not submit to testing at all.1 Officer Parsons further explained that the minimum penalty for a "first offender" is three months' suspension if the driver takes the test and fails, but six months' automatic suspension if the driver refuses to take the test. If the driver is not a first offender, the minimum penalty is one years' suspension if the driver takes the test and fails, but three year's automatic suspension if the driver refuses to take the test. Officer Parsons testified that defendant indicated that he understood the warning, but he declined to take the test.
Officer Parsons was thoroughly cross-examined by defense counsel. First it was established that, according to the police report, defendant was pulled over at 9:46 p.m. and his refusal to submit to the breath test occurred at 9:55, only nine minutes later. Thus, the field sobriety tests and explanation of the warning all took place in under 10 minutes. Also, Officer Parsons admitted that he asked defendant to take the test only once — while defendant was sitting, handcuffed, in the back of the police car — and he did not give defendant a copy of the warning when it was read to him. A copy of the warning was provided to defendant, as required by law, but not until nearly an hour later, when defendant was in jail. Officer Parsons also acknowledged that he had received an award one year for making more DUI arrests than anyone in his police department.
When cross-examined about his initial observations of defendant's driving, Officer Parsons admitted that defendant had not been speeding and, except for crossing over into the other lane, had operated his vehicle appropriately. Officer Parsons conceded that when defendant was driving along Oak Street, before he was stopped, there was a vehicle in front of defendant and that it was possible that defendant had been crossing into the other lane to determine whether it was safe to pass. In fact, this is what defendant told the officer when he was stopped. However, Officer Parsons insisted that on at least one occasion, defendant crossed a double yellow line, where it would have been illegal to pass.
Officer Parsons was also questioned extensively about the conditions under which defendant took the field sobriety tests. Officer Parsons could not remember whether, when conducting the "walk and turn" test, he used the white line on the shoulder of the road or simply asked defendant to walk straight along an "imaginary" line. At trial, all he could remember was what he put in his report — that defendant did not walk in a straight line. When it was brought to his attention that, according to the United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the "walk and turn" test requires a line the suspect can see, Officer Parsons responded that he was trained that an actual line was not required. Finally, Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Perry
...probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. People v. Johnson, 218 Ill.2d 125, 143-44, 299 Ill.Dec. 677, 842 N.E.2d 714 (2005). If either prong of the Strickland test is not met, defendant's claim must fail. Thus, a reviewing court nee......
-
People v. Bustos
...would have been different." Perry , 224 Ill. 2d at 342, 309 Ill.Dec. 330, 864 N.E.2d 196 (citing People v. Johnson , 218 Ill. 2d 125, 143-44, 299 Ill.Dec. 677, 842 N.E.2d 714 (2005) ). The prejudice prong requires a showing of actual prejudice, not simply speculation that the defendant migh......
-
People v. Garcia
...The initial step in any plain error analysis is to establish that there was error in the first place. People v. Johnson , 218 Ill.2d 125, 139, 299 Ill.Dec. 677, 842 N.E.2d 714 (2005). Defendant does not argue the evidence was closely balanced such that any alleged error threatened to tip th......
-
People v. Theis
...prosecutor's comment is proper, courts must view such comment in context of the entire closing argument. People v. Johnson, 218 Ill.2d 125, 141, 299 Ill.Dec. 677, 842 N.E.2d 714 (2005). ¶ 54 In this case, the prosecutor's comments were based on the evidence presented at trial and were invit......