Motion To Suppress/ D U I / Eavesdropping
2nd Dist. People v. Babolcsay, No. 2-05-0680 (November 16, 2006) DuPage County (BOWMAN) Reversed and remanded
Even though State in trial court stipulated that defective audio video recording, on which only audio portion was discernable, of field sobriety test violated Eavesdropping Act, the trial court erred when it granted the defendant's motion to suppress the officer's testimony regarding conversations that occurred during videotaping. Because officer was engaged in lawful investigation of suspected DUI, the conversations did not result from illegal conduct and was not 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'

Right Of Confrontation
2nd Dist. People v. Kim, No. 2-05-1130 (November 16, 2006) DuPage County (HUTCHINSON) Affirmed
Because affidavit from testing officer with regards to certification of Breathalyzer machine is not testimonial in nature, trial court did not violate defendant's right of confrontation when it allowed it into evidence in her DUI trial.

Search And Seizure / Evidence
1st Dist. People v. Robinson, No. 1-05-0681 (November 22, 2006) 5th div. (O'MARA FROSSARD) Reversed and remanded
Police officers were conducting community caretaking function when they approached defendant's vehicle in response to 911 call that defendant was slumped over the steering of his parked vehicle with the motor running; and had reasonable suspicion to open door, and arouse unconscious defendant. After they woke defendant and he could not step out of vehicle without assistance, they observed strong odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, and defendant refused to submit to field sobriety test, they had probable cause to arrest him. Therefore, trial court properly denied motion to suppress. However, it committed reversible error when it allowed, over defense objection during bench trial, State to introduce record of 2 prior DUI convictions on the mistaken notion that it was necessary element of proof of aggravated DUI. Further, the trial court erred when it refused to allow defendant's lay witness to give opinion about defendant's sobriety 2 hrs. before police came across defendant; and it erroneously refused to allow defense counsel to question State's only witness about prior inconsistent grand jury testimony with regards to defendant's driving.

Right To Counsel/ Driving While Suspended
Appeal from 3rd Dist. People v. Campbell, No. 101263 (November 30, 2006) (THOMAS) Appellate court affirmed, conviction vacated
Because trial court failed to properly admonish defendant, pursuant to SCR 401(a) before allowing him to waive his right to counsel, his conviction of driving while suspended must be vacated. Although trial court did not impose sentence of imprisonment, the offense with which he was charged carries with it a potential jail term; and Section 113-3(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure provides broader entitlement to trial counsel than U.S. Constitution.

Speedy Trial Act/ Ineffectiveness Of Counsel
Appeal from 3rd Dist. People v. Cordell, No. 101546 (November 30, 2006) (BURKE) Appellate court reversed
Appellate court erred when it reversed defendant's conviction of retail theft and criminal trespass to property because of failure of trial counsel to move to dismiss based on Speedy Trial Act. Because defendant made no objection to trial court's suggestion of trial date beyond the 120 days since defendant's arrest and detention began, trial court properly considered delay to be agreed to by defendant.

Reckless Homicide/ D U I / Sentencing
2nd Dist. People v. Gancarz, No. 2-04-0190 (November 30, 2006) DuPage County (BYRNE) (O'MALLEY, dissent) Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded
Although evidence of cannabis in defendant's truck and bedroom was irrelevant, and trial court abused its discretion in admitting it, it was harmless error in bench trial. Further, testimony of physician, who extrapolated from blood and urine samples taken several hours after deadly accident, and concluded that defendant was under the influence of cannabis, coupled with testimony of defendant's specific acts of reckless driving, is sufficient to sustain conviction for reckless driving and aggravated DUI. However, trial court erred when it failed to give defendant the opportunity to be sentenced under amended reckless homicide statute. Since aggravated DUI conviction then becomes more serious offense, carrying a heavier sentencing range, the reckless homicide conviction merges into aggravated DUI, rather than converse, and 14 yr. sentence for reckless homicide is vacated. Court must re-sentence defendant within 1-12 yr. range of aggravated DUI conviction.

Search And Seizure/ Arrest / U U W
2nd Dist. People v. Queen, No. 2-05-0185 (November 28, 2006) Lake County (O'MALLEY) Affirmed
Even though defendant was seized when policeman ordered him to car, it was for community caretaking purpose, because defendant was drunk and had fallen from tree; and officer intended to drive defendant home for his own safety. Therefore, since officer was justified in calling defendant over to car and in conducting pat down search before transporting him, trial court properly refused to quash defendant's arrest or suppress switchblade seized from defendant's hand prior to trial for UUW.

Search And Seizure/ Controlled Substance / Motion To Suppress
2nd Dist. People v. Moorman, No. 2-04-1212 (November 29, 2006) DuPage County (GROMETER) (CALLUM, dissent) Affirmed
After defendant, who had just left apartment complex known for illegal drug activity, was stopped for expired registration, and he admitted that his license was revoked, police had probable cause to arrest him and conduct search of his person and vehicle incident to arrest. Therefore, even though police did not formally place defendant under arrest, they could properly inquire about presence of drugs in car and seize bag containing cocaine, which defendant's passenger pulled out of her mouth. Recovery of controlled substance, coupled with defendant's assertion that it belonged to him, was sufficient to convict him of possession.