City of Evanston v. Waggoner
1967 Ill. App. LEXIS 1428, 90 Ill. App. 2d 5, 234 N.E.2d 354 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory presumption of intoxication based on blood alcohol content is rebuttable and does not by itself render a trial court's finding of 'not guilty' against the manifest weight of the evidence when there is other competent, contradictory testimony that the court finds credible.
Facts:
- The defendant, aged 20, attended a party where he drank two or three large steins of beer over approximately three and a half hours.
- After the party, the defendant and his date, Joan Tumpson, drove to a park where they walked around.
- The defendant took his shoes off in the park and was subsequently unable to find them.
- In order to get Tumpson back to her dormitory by her 2:00 a.m. curfew, the defendant drove her there without wearing his shoes.
- While driving back to the park to retrieve his shoes, the defendant's vehicle struck the rear of a car driven by Ralph Earlandson, which was stopped to make a left turn.
- As a result of the impact, the defendant hit his head on the windshield, breaking the glass.
- Police officers who arrived at the scene smelled an alcoholic beverage on the defendant's breath and noted he was shoeless.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Evanston brought a quasi-criminal action against the defendant in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Second Municipal District, for violating a city ordinance prohibiting driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
- The defendant pleaded not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial.
- After a bench trial, the trial court judge found the defendant not guilty.
- The City of Evanston, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment of 'not guilty' to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a trial court's finding of 'not guilty' for driving under the influence against the manifest weight of the evidence when the defendant's blood alcohol content creates a statutory presumption of intoxication, but other witness testimony and observations contradict this presumption?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Adesko
No. A trial court's finding of 'not guilty' is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the court properly weighed the statutory presumption of intoxication against contradictory testimonial evidence. The court recognized the statutory presumption created by the defendant's 0.19% blood alcohol content but noted that the statute explicitly allows for the introduction of other competent evidence. The trial judge, as the trier of fact, was in the superior position to assess witness credibility and weigh all the evidence presented. This included testimony from the defendant's date that his driving was not unusual, testimony from the other driver that the defendant's speech and balance seemed normal after the accident, and even police officers' own reports that the defendant's walk and ability to turn were 'fair.' Therefore, the trial court’s conclusion that the City of Evanston failed to prove its case was a permissible weighing of contradictory evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts give to a trial court's factual findings, particularly those based on witness credibility. It establishes that a statutory presumption, such as the one for intoxication based on a specific blood alcohol content, is not conclusive and can be overcome by credible lay witness testimony. The decision underscores that scientific evidence, while powerful, does not automatically compel a specific outcome and must be weighed against all other evidence. This precedent solidifies the trial judge's role as the ultimate arbiter of fact in a bench trial, whose judgment will stand unless an opposite conclusion is clearly evident from the record.
