 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Slinkard9/20/2005
The issue presented in this appeal is whether defendant, Danny R. Slinkard, was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (West 2002)), improper lane usage (625 ILCS 5/11--709(a) (West 2002)), and leaving the scene of an automobile accident (625 ILCS 5/11--402(a) (West 2002)). Defendant contends that the State failed to prove him guilty of these offenses because no evidence indicated that he drove or had control over the vehicle involved in these crimes. We affirm.
According to the parties' agreed statement of facts, the following evidence was presented at trial. On November 10, 2003, at approximately 8:47 p.m., Officer Jason Watson responded to a hit-and-run automobile accident at 637 South Second Street in De Kalb. When Officer Watson arrived at the scene, he observed David Fermanich's truck, which had sustained damage to the left rear side, parked partially on the lawn next to the parkway. Officer Watson also saw debris lying in the street where Fermanich's truck had been struck. Fermanich told Officer Watson that his truck had been parked on the street next to the curb in front of his home. While inside of his house, Fermanich heard a loud crash. He looked out a window in his home and saw a dark-colored truck or sport utility vehicle (SUV) driving south on Second Street. Fermanich did not know the make or model of the dark-colored vehicle, he did not see who was driving the vehicle, and he did not obtain the vehicle's license plate number.
Within a few minutes after Officer Watson arrived at Fermanich's home, a radio dispatcher informed the officer that a man had been observed inside of a burning vehicle a few blocks away. Officer Watson left Second Street and proceeded to 630 Best Avenue, where he observed defendant staggering in the side yard of his home in close proximity to a red SUV, which had extensive front-end damage and was emitting smoke. Officer Watson also observed defendant's mother standing at the front door of the home, talking with defendant. While pointing to the red SUV, Officer Watson asked defendant whether he owned the vehicle. Defendant responded, " hat vehicle?" During his continued conversation with defendant, Officer Watson noticed that defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, slurred his speech, swayed while standing, and had bloodshot eyes. Based on these observations, Officer Watson believed that defendant was highly intoxicated, a belief that subsequent blood-alcohol tests confirmed. Officer Watson also learned later that defendant was the registered owner of the SUV.
Based on the circumstantial evidence presented, the trial court found defendant guilty of, among other things, DUI, improper lane usage, and leaving the scene of an automobile accident. Defendant moved for a new trial or acquittal, contending that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court denied the motion.
According to the report of proceedings from the hearing on the motion for acquittal or a new trial, the trial court recollected the evidence on which it relied. Specifically, the trial court found that, while Officer Watson was at the scene of the hit-and-run accident, he was called to another accident scene approximately four blocks away. When Officer Watson arrived at the second accident scene, he saw the SUV leaking water, releasing steam, and emitting a large amount of smoke from the heavily damaged front portion of the vehicle. Officer Watson then observed defendant standing in close proximity to the SUV. The trial court stated that, according to Fermanich, a male was driving the SUV that he saw leaving the scene of the accident. Based on all of this circu
Page 1 2 3 4 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|