People v. Koch, 12060

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Citation: 304 N.E.2d 482,15 Ill.App.3d 386
• Docket Number: No. 12060,12060
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold KOCH, Defendant-Appellee.
• Decision Date: 30 November 1973

Page 482

304 N.E.2d 482 15 Ill.App.3d 386 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Harold KOCH, Defendant-Appellee. No. 12060. Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Nov. 30, 1973.

[15 Ill.App.3d 387] Basil G. Greanias, State's Atty., Macon County, Decatur, James R. Coryell, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frederick P. Erickson, Decatur, for defendant-appellee.

SIMKINS, Justice.

This is an interlocutory appeal by the State from an order of the circuit court of Macon County sustaining objection to the admissibility of certain in-custody oral statements made by defendant. It is contended that the order in question is appealable as either a de facto dismissal of an indictment or a suppression of evidence under Supreme Court Rule 604, Ill.Rev.Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, sec. 604, or as a confession under Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, sec. 114--11(g).

Page 483

On May 22, 1972, defendant, Harold Koch, was charged with the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Ill.Rev.Stat. 1971, ch. 95 1/2, sec. 11--501. A jury trial was commenced on September 18, 1972, at which time the State presented two witnesses who testified that on the evening in question they noticed defendant's vehicle to be in a ditch close to their homes, that they tried to push the car from the ditch but were unsuccessful because of defendant's lack of cooperation, and that defendant left the car and stumbled toward a nearby service station. Both stated that defendant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. The arresting officer testified that on the same evening he observed defendant returning to his vehicle in a staggering fashion, that he found a six pack of beer on the floorboard of defendant's car, and that he was likewise of the opinion that defendant was under the influence of an intoxicating beverage.

Defendant then moved, outside the presence of the jury, to suppress [15 Ill.App.3d 388] certain incustody oral statements made by defendant, contending that defendant was too intoxicated to have intelligently waived the rights granted him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. At the hearing on said motion the two interrogating officers testified that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, and that defendant acknowledged that he was aware of them. In essence, both officers testified that they were of the belief that although the effects of the alcohol on defendant were extreme, i.e. too extreme for driving purposes, defendant was sufficiently sober to understand the rights he was waiving. It was further stated that defendant subsequently failed the breathalyzer test administered to him. The court sustained...