 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Slinkard9/20/2005
ssed that such facts, or the absence of such facts, is not controlling. See Davis, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 436 (noting that State need not prove that the defendant was positioned in the driver's seat in order to establish that the defendant exercised physical control over the vehicle, because to so hold would contradict the admonishment that actual physical control is a question of fact that must be decided on a case-by-case basis). Applying this logic to the facts presented here, we cannot conclude that the absence of the factors delineated in Davis mandates a conclusion that defendant was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when, as noted, many other facts particular to this case suggest otherwise.
As a final matter, defendant argues that the substance of the dispatcher's call, which advised Officer Watson that a man was inside of a burning car, was hearsay that the State could not use as a fact to establish his guilt. Defendant's argument is misplaced. Such hearsay statements are inadmissible only if objected to at trial. See Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 262-64. Here, the record does not indicate that defendant objected to the content of the dispatcher's call. Thus, the trial court properly considered the substance of the dispatch and its probative effect. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 263. For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of De Kalb County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
O'MALLEY, P.J., and KAPALA, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|