 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Cantlin6/4/2004
g. This in itself was not improper. A witness may refer to documents to refresh his recollection prior to taking the stand. Graham, § 612.1 at 564. However, the witness must then testify from his independent recollection. People v. Griswold, 405 Ill. 533, 541-42, 92 N.E.2d 91 (1950). The extent to which the documents actually refreshed the witness's recollection goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony. Corrales v. American Cab Co., 170 Ill.App.3d 907, 911, 120 Ill.Dec. 741, 524 N.E.2d 923 (1988); Graham, § 612.1 at 564.
Defendant suggests that, in denying his motion for a directed verdict, the trial court erred in concluding that Suits was "rehabilitated somewhat" during redirect examination. As noted, Suits testified consistently to having at least some independent recollection of the incident. On redirect, he stated, "After I do read the report it does refresh my memory, yes." In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the court must view the evidence in the light ***35 most favorable to the State and decide whether the evidence so viewed fails to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Turner, 127 Ill.App.3d 784, 790, 82 Ill.Dec. 834, 469 N.E.2d 368 (1984). Because the trial court had to consider the evidence in the light **276 most favorable to the State, and because the issue of Suits's reliance on his report affected only the weight of the evidence, the trial court properly considered that evidence in ruling on the motion did not err in denying it.
Finally, we reject any suggestion that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the relevant question is whether, after viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237, 261, 87 Ill.Dec. 910, 478 N.E.2d 267 (1985).
*1004 Defendant's argument is based on the premise that Suits's testimony was based solely on his report and should have been disregarded. We have already rejected this contention. When Suits's testimony is considered in conjunction with the other evidence, there was ample proof that defendant drove under the influence of alcohol. Suits testified that he saw defendant driving erratically. See Kappas, 120 Ill.App.3d at 128, 76 Ill.Dec. 1, 458 N.E.2d 140 (evidence that the defendant was weaving out of his lane was relevant to show that he was driving under the influence). After effecting a traffic stop, the trooper noticed that defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot and glassy eyes, and slurred speech. He failed field sobriety tests. Later, he refused a breathalyzer test. See People v. Thomas, 200 Ill.App.3d 268, 282, 146 Ill.Dec. 693, 558 N.E.2d 656 (1990) (refusal to take breath test is evidence of consciousness of guilt). An open bottle of alcohol was found in defendant's car. Defendant admitted that he had been drinking that evening, although he denied being impaired by it. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant drove under the influence of alcohol.
The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|