 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hall4/9/2004
mbined influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving." 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(5) (West 2000).
IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B is an instruction entitled "Prescription Not a Defense." It instructs the jury that the use of prescription medicines or the prescribed use of alcohol is not a defense to a charge of DUI. The instruction is almost identical to section 11-501(b), which provides:
"The fact that any person charged with violating this Section is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof, shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this Section." 625 ILCS 5/11-501(b) (West 2000).
This instruction tells the jury that defendant's use of prescription medications is not a defense to this DUI charge.
Defendant claims that he did not raise the defense that he should be acquitted because he was taking prescription medication. He claims that his defense was solely that he had no alcohol in his system at the time of his arrest. However, it was the defendant who brought up the fact that he was taking 20 pills a day for his medical conditions and that this was the reason he refused to take the Breathalyzer test. There was no medical or expert testimony to corroborate whether the medication defendant was taking would lead to a false positive on a Breathalyzer test, or that the effects of the medication could mimic alcohol intoxication. Taking prescription medication is not a defense to a DUI charge.
As Justice Holdridge points out in his special concurrence, the jury was properly instructed on all the elements the State had to prove to support a guilty verdict. In light of the evidence put on by the defendant, IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B simply tells the jury that if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest, all of the evidence about the prescription drugs is irrelevant.
IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B is a correct statement of the law and is applicable to the facts in this case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
*432 CONCLUSION
The circuit court of Iroquois County is hereby affirmed. The conviction of the defendant is hereby affirmed.
Page 1 2 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|