People v. Sides

• Decision Date: 21 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 4-89-0801,4-89-0801
• Parties: , 145 Ill.Dec. 160 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel SIDES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 778

556 N.E.2d 778

199 Ill.App.3d 203, 145 Ill.Dec. 160

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel SIDES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-89-0801.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Fourth District.

June 21, 1990.

Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender, Office of State Appellate Defender, Springfield, David Bergschneider, Asst. Defender, for defendant-appellant.

John B. Huschen, State's Atty., Eureka, Kenneth R. Boyle, Director, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, (Peter C. Drummond, Staunton of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court:

This case presents the question of whether the State must establish the foundation required under Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir.1923), 293 F. 1013, before the results of field-sobriety tests can be admitted into evidence. We hold that a Frye hearing is not required.

Defendant, Samuel Sides, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501) and sentenced to 12 months' probation. At trial, Officer Ronald Reysen testified that when he walked up to defendant's parked automobile, he found defendant therein had glassy eyes, unzipped trousers, an odor of alcohol on his breath, and an open can of beer between him and the console. The keys to the car were in the ignition.

Defendant exhibited difficulty in getting out of the car and took 45 seconds to retrieve his driver's license from his wallet. Reysen requested that defendant perform field-sobriety tests, specifically the "finger-to-nose," "walk and turn," and "one leg stand" tests. Defendant touched his nose each of six times, but touched the tip of his nose, as he had been requested, only once. In addition, defendant was unable to complete the "walk and turn" test and was able to perform the "one leg stand" for only 3 seconds, not 30, as requested. Reysen said that defendant's speech was slightly slurred.

Reysen further testified that he had attended a three-day course on field-sobriety tests at Illinois Central College approximately four to five years earlier. Both a written and a practical examination were given at the end of the training and Reysen passed both of them. Reysen testified he had been a police officer for 9 1/2 years and had charged approximately 50 people with DUI.

Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to bar the State from introducing any evidence of the results of field-sobriety tests, as well as the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test that Reysen performed. As part of this motion defendant argued that the field-sobriety test results are not admissible because they fail to meet the Frye reliability standards for scientific testing, as discussed in People v. Baynes (1981), 88 Ill.2d 225, 58 Ill.Dec. 819, 430 N.E.2d 1070 (a case in which the supreme court ruled that no polygraph results are admissible). The motion in limine was allowed with regard to the results of the HGN test, but denied with regard to the results of the field-sobriety tests.

Before this court, defendant renews the same argument:

"Because the State failed to establish an adequate foundation to show that field sobriety tests are reliable indicators of past use of alcohol, the trial court erred by denying defense counsel's motion in limine * * *.

In this case, Officer Reysen had no knowledge of the scientific theory underlying the field sobriety tests and admitted that he gave the tests only because 'those were the tests that we were taught to administer' when an individual was believed to have been consuming alcohol. * * * The State obviously failed to establish any scientific basis for the field sobriety tests and failed to show that the scientific theory underlying those tests had won general acceptance in the scientific community."

We reject this characterization of the field-sobriety tests. In People v. Vega (1986), 145 Ill.App.3d 996, 1000-01, 99 Ill.Dec. 808, 811-12, 496 N.E.2d 501, 504-05, this court held that admission of the results of an HGN test was error because such evidence was beyond the general knowledge of the average individual and no expert testimony was offered to establish the necessary foundation. However, reversal was not required because of the strength of the other evidence offered....