 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Cantlin6/4/2004
Following a jury trial, defendant, Steven M. Cantlin, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2002)). Defendant appeals, contending that (1) the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce evidence of an open bottle of vodka found in defendant's car; (2) he was deprived of due process because the State destroyed the bottle before trial; and (3) he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the arresting officer testified, not from his personal recollection, but solely from reading his report. We affirm.
The evidence at trial revealed the following. State trooper Brian Suits testified that on December 12, 2001, he was patrolling Interstate 88. Shortly after midnight, he saw defendant's car briefly cross the lane marking about five times. He pulled defendant over. Suits noticed that defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot and glassy eyes, and slurred speech. Suits had defendant perform field sobriety tests which, in Suits's opinion, defendant failed. Suits therefore arrested defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. At the police station, defendant refused a breathalyzer test.
Sergeant Robert Meeder testified that he conducted an inventory search of defendant's car. Under a blanket behind the passenger's seat, he found a bottle of Gordon's vodka with the seal broken. Based on his personal and professional experience, he concluded that the bottle in fact contained vodka. He later disposed of the bottle. Due to the amount of open alcohol containers that the State police confiscate, policy calls for such containers to be destroyed rather than preserved as evidence.
After the State rested, defendant moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion. Scott Buxten then testified that he was with defendant that evening. Defendant drank three beers during that *1000 time but did not appear to be impaired. Defendant also testified that he **273 ***32 had three drinks that evening but was not feeling any effects from them. He testified that the bottle of vodka in the backseat was from a camping trip two weeks earlier. He had not drunk from the bottle shortly before his arrest.
The jury found defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced him to 24 months' probation including 120 days of periodic imprisonment. After the court denied defendant's posttrial motion, he timely appealed.
Defendant raises two issues related to the vodka bottle found in his backseat. He first contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of the bottle because it was improper "other crimes" evidence. He asserts that the bottle established that he committed another crime, illegal transportation of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11-202(a) (West 2002)), and was offered merely to establish his propensity to commit alcohol-related crimes.
Generally, evidence that a defendant committed other crimes is inadmissible merely to establish a defendant's propensity to commit crimes. People v. Manning, 182 Ill.2d 193, 213, 230 Ill.Dec. 933, 695 N.E.2d 423 (1998). Other-crimes evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving modus operandi, identity, motive, or intent. People v. Donoho, 204 Ill.2d 159, 170, 273 Ill.Dec. 116, 788 N.E.2d 707 (2003). The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the trial court's discretion and its decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Peeples, 155 Ill.2d 422, 456, 186 Ill.Dec. 341, 616 N.E.2d 294 (1993).
We agree with the State that the evidence was introduced, not to prove that defendant previously committed some unrelated crime, but as circumstantial evidence that he committed the crime for which he was on trial. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make th
Page 1 2 3 4 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|