People v. Valtierra
| Decision Date | 22 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-17-0092,4-17-0092 |
| Citation | 2019 IL App (4th) 170092 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM VALTIERRA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County
Honorable John Casey Costigan, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) defendant failed to show his contentions of error were reviewable under the plain-error doctrine and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction for aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol.
¶ 2 Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant, William Valtierra, guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court committed plain error when it considered (a) an anonymous complaint about a reckless driver as proof he was impaired and (b) a portion of an off-camera audio recording as proof he refused to give a breath sample; and (2) the evidence, when excluding the anonymous complaint and the off-camera audio recording, was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
¶ 5 In September 2015, the State charged defendant by indictment with aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), a Class 2 felony (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(A), (d)(2)(B) (West 2014)). The State alleged defendant, on or about April 25, 2015, drove or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and had previously been convicted of DUI offenses in 1984 and 2011.
¶ 7 Over a two-day period in June and July 2016, the trial court held a bench trial. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.
¶ 10 Joshua Vanausdoll testified he had been a trooper with the Illinois State Police for a little more than 2.5 years. Trooper Vanausdoll testified he had prior training and experience with "DUI alcohol detection." He completed six months of training at the Illinois State Police academy, where he learned National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards and field sobriety testing, and he had made several DUI arrests.
¶ 11 On April 25, 2015, Trooper Vanausdoll served as a field training officer to Trooper Jason Pignon. That evening, Trooper Vanausdoll observed Trooper Pignon conduct a traffic stop and perform field sobriety tests on defendant. Trooper Vanausdoll testified Trooper Pignon conducted the field sobriety tests in accordance with NHTSA standards. Following those tests, Trooper Vanausdoll observed Trooper Pignon place defendant under arrest.
¶ 12 Trooper Vanausdoll described defendant's speech as "slow and lethargic, lazy." Trooper Vanausdoll observed defendant's behavior change "drastically" after he was arrested, describing defendant's behavior as "all over the place" and "up and down." Trooper Vanausdoll testified defendant was "belligerent" to Trooper Pignon and made "erratic claims" suggesting the troopers were hitting him and that they broke his arm. Trooper Vanausdoll testified they handled defendant politely and cautiously, noting they accommodated defendant after he complained about his arm by moving his handcuffs from behind his back to the front of his body. Trooper Vanausdoll indicated he did not believe defendant needed to be seen by "rescue" that evening and maintained he did not strike defendant nor did he observe any trooper do so. Trooper Vanausdoll concluded, based on his training and experience, defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to operate a motor vehicle.
¶ 13 b. Trooper Jason Pignon
¶ 14 Jason Pignon testified he had been a trooper with the Illinois State Police since September 14, 2014. Trooper Pignon testified he completed DUI training through NHTSA, learning "DUI detection and screening for DUI, field sobriety, standardized field sobriety testing, and the process that goes along with that."
¶ 15 After discussing his experience and training, the following inquiry occurred:
¶ 16 The State then questioned Trooper Pignon about an audio and video recording:
Following this line of questioning, the State moved to admit People's Exhibit No. 1. Over no objection, the trial court admitted the exhibit, a DVD containing an audio and video recording approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes in length. At various points during Trooper Pignon's direct examination, the State published portions of the audio and video recording.
¶ 17 Trooper Pignon testified he observed the reported vehicle, later determined to be defendant's vehicle, driving in the center lane of three lanes of traffic and then followed the vehicle. Trooper Pignon indicated the vehicle "appeared to be swerving inside the lane, [and] at one point straddling the center lane marker for a short period of time." Trooper Pignon toggled his emergency lights to stop the vehicle. He then observed defendant's vehicle make an improperlane change and use the left turn signal even though it was merging to the right shoulder. Trooper Pignon testified, based on his experience with the NHTSA guidelines for DUI detection, he found the improper lane usage, straddling of the centerline, and drifting in the lane to be indicators of possible impairment.
¶ 18 The State played the beginning of the audio and video recording, which showed the view from the dashboard of the squad car looking forward through the windshield. The recording showed a vehicle, later determined to be defendant's vehicle, drift in the center lane and then cross over to the left lane. After emergency lights were activated, defendant's vehicle returned to the center lane, turned on its right turn signal, crossed over to the right lane, turned on its right turn signal, crossed over to an exit lane, crossed back over to the right lane, turned on a left turn signal, and then stopped on the side of the highway. The squad car was then parked directly behind defendant's vehicle.
¶ 19 Trooper Pignon testified he approached the passenger side of defendant's vehicle. Upon doing so, he "detected an odor of alcoholic beverage." He asked for defendant's driver's license and proof of insurance. Defendant handed Trooper Pignon several pieces of paper. Trooper Pignon observed defendant was "leaned forward" and "unbuckled." He described defendant's speech as "[i]ndistinct," "[s]tuttered," and "slurred." Trooper Pignon described defendant's eyes as "glassy." Trooper Pignon asked defendant if he had consumed any alcoholic beverages, and defendant indicated he had a couple earlier that day. Trooper Pignon later testified defendant specifically stated he had a margarita earlier that day. Trooper Pignon testified, based on his experience with the NHTSA guidelines for DUI detection, he found the slurred speech, the odor of an alcoholic beverage, and the fumbling when dealing with locatingan insurance card to be indicators of possible impairment.
¶ 20 After the initial contact, Trooper Pignon returned to the squad car, ran a computer check, and then repositioned the squad car to conduct standardized field sobriety testing in accordance with NHTSA standards. Trooper Pignon then returned to defendant's vehicle and asked defendant to participate in the standardized field sobriety testing. Defendant agreed to do so. Trooper Pignon testified defendant exited his vehicle at a slow place. Trooper Pignon also noticed defendant's clothing from the lower part of his back to approximately his knees was saturated with a wet substance.
¶ 21 Trooper Pignon first administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. He observed defendant had equal pupil size, no resting nystagmus, and equal tracking. During the administration of the test, Trooper Pignon observed both of defendant's eyes lacked smooth pursuit—two clues of impairment. Both eyes also showed sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation—two more clues of impairment. Neither eye showed...
To continue reading
Request your trial