Find Legal Information

No. 2--04--0935

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

Defendant, Paul Cortez, appeals his conviction, after a bench trial, of one count of driving avehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(1) (West2002)). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to quasharrest; (2) allowing the State to introduce undisclosed opinion testimony; (3) allowing the State tointroduce the result of a blood test; (4) accepting expert testimony converting defendant's serumblood test results to a whole blood equivalent; and (5) finding him to be proven guilty beyond areasonable doubt. In his reply brief, defendant also argues that the blood test used against him wasimproperly admitted because it did not comply with section 11--501.2 of the Illinois Vehicle Code(625 ILCS 5/11--501.2 (West 2002)). We affirm.

On April 24, 2003, at approximately 4 p.m., defendant lost control of his black sport utilityvehicle as he drove down an interstate entrance ramp. After defendant lost control, the car apparentlyrolled over before coming to rest in a ditch next to the interstate. State Trooper Robert Pattersonarrived at the scene of the accident, summoned an ambulance, and briefly questioned defendantregarding the incident. Defendant rode in the ambulance to the hospital, where he received medicaltreatment from Dr. Brian Kern. Shortly after defendant arrived at the hospital, Patterson arrested himfor driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (West 2002)). Based ondefendant's blood test, he was also charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcoholconcentration of 0.08 or greater (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(1) (West 2002)).

Before his trial began, defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest on the ground thatPatterson lacked probable cause to arrest him. The trial court held a hearing on defendant's motionon March 15, 2004.

Trooper Patterson was the only witness to testify at the hearing. He testified that he wasdispatched to the scene of defendant's accident at approximately 4 p.m. on April 24, 2003. Upon hisarrival, Patterson noticed two sets of skid marks on the interstate entrance ramp, and he saw a blacksport utility vehicle lying on its driver's side in the ditch approximately 25 to 50 feet from theinterstate. He testified that only the driver's side of the car showed any damage. At that time,Patterson approached defendant, who was standing next to his vehicle in the ditch, and asked if heneeded medical attention. Defendant informed Patterson that his back and neck were injured and thathe needed an ambulance. Patterson testified that defendant had bloodshot eyes, that there was astrong odor of alcohol on defendant's breath, that defendant was swaying forward and backward asthe two talked, and that defendant slurred his speech. Defendant also admitted to having consumed"a couple beers." Patterson stated that he did not ask defendant to perform any field sobriety tests"due to [defendant's] injury."

Defendant claimed to Patterson that the accident was the result of a vehicle, which defendantcould not describe, running him off the entrance ramp. Patterson noted that the entrance ramp wasonly one car lane wide and that, if two cars were to drive on the ramp side-by-side, one would haveto drive in the gravel alongside the paved portion of the ramp. Patterson stated that he found no tiretracks in the gravel next to the ramp on the day of the accident. He described the traffic as "light"at the time that he arrived at the scene. Patterson described the skid marks on the ramp as follows:

"Okay the skid marks there was [sic] basically two sets. First set was approximately50, 75 foot [sic] after the entrance into the ramp and the way the marks [sic] skid marks, itwent to the right like going to the right ditch. That's the way the curve of the ramp washeading. It *** kind of straightened back out. It looked to me that the vehicle wasn'tstraightened out, so in that time I believe that he was braking, tried to avoid that ditch, overcorrect it to the left which in that time period there was a brief, there's [sic] no skid marks. Once the vehicle went back corrected to the left heading toward the left ditch there was [sic]more skid marks and directly after the skid marks went down into the ditch."

Patterson concluded that the vehicle had not rolled over completely but merely "went fromthe wheels to the driver's side."

Patterson admitted that, in front of the grand jury, he had testified that defendant told him thatdefendant did not need an ambulance at the scene of the accident. Patterson also admitted that hispolice report listed the time of defendant's arrest as 4:12 p.m., when, in fact, the arrest occurred inthe hospital sometime after 4:12, which was actually the time Patterson arrived at the scene of theaccident.

In its ruling on the motion to quash, the trial court summarized Patterson's testimony,including the indicia of intoxication Patterson had mentioned. It also noted the discrepancy betweenPatterson's grand jury testimony and his hearing testimony, but it concluded that "[i]t's pretty clearthat [defendant] did in fact ask for an ambulance." The court also noted that Patterson's testimony"[that] the traffic was light certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to the court," based on the time ofday and location of the accident. However, the court concluded that it did not "find [Patterson's]testimony to have been so impeached that it's unbelievable as to these other things that he hasindicated for the court." The court then denied defendant's motion to quash his arrest.

Before the start of defendant's bench trial, defendant made several motions in limine, includinga motion to prohibit introduction of any undisclosed statements by defendant, a motion to prohibitthe State's calling undisclosed witnesses, a motion to prohibit the introduction of any opinionevidence not previously disclosed, a motion to exclude "any foundation evidence for opinions thathave not yet been previously disclosed," and a motion to exclude "any evidence from a nontestifyingwitness." The court granted all but the latter two motions, on which it reserved ruling.

Defendant's bench trial took place on June 10 and 11, 2004. Paramedic Terence Reilly wasthe first witness to testify. He testified that he was dispatched to the location of a rollover accidentat approximately 4 p.m. on April 24, 2003, and, upon his arrival at the scene, Patterson directed himto defendant. Reilly stated that defendant's car had rolled over 1