am here today representing the bell we are seeking reversal of a dui misdemeanor conviction miss bell was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol at her jury trial the trial court committed error in questioning the jurors under the their case trial court failed to ask the jurors whether they understood their questions that were being asked and  that they do your honor and that was going to be my next sentence that the state has conceded that issue the question then becomes whether or not the evidence in this case was closely balanced this was not an issue that was preserved at trial by trial counsel so in determining whether the evidence is closely balanced the court looks to whether it was a contest of credibility and here in fact it was a credibility contest the evidence a trial was the testimony of the arresting police officer and the results of a breathalyzer test the test results i did she blow what i'm sorry on or what did she raised in our brief which does go to the closely balanced evidence mr bell requested the appointment of an expert from the trial court and that expert request was denied because the expert request was denied it miss bell was unable to refute the validity of the breathalyzer results at her trial the breathalyzer results were contested because in this bell suffers from a condition gerd gastro a soft she'll reflux disease causes the contents of the stomach to enter the back of the throat and is a known interfering substance for the validity results there is an illinois supreme court decision people versus by nudity in which a defendant and who also suffered from gerd raised that issue to the trial court st as a in a  not that was she was not going to resume experts she wanted the state pay for an expert yes if she wanted that she was seeking expert fence from that the court to pay for an expert yes ok so in b after the court heard the testimony of the defendant denied us a summary suspension defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the breathalyzer results and brought in the defendant's treating physician who testified as an expert that gerd is will interfere with the validity of breathalyzer test results anything that enters the mouth during that twenty minute waiting period potentially is going to interfere with the validity of suppression in the state appealed the suppression and in holding the suppression the illinois supreme court said that what matters is the validity of these test results we in order for these results to be presented as definitive evidence they have to be reliable they have to be credible we have to be able to know that these results are legitimate and in the bonnie case because there was testimony was here in the record your honor they have they normally are sitting at a table face to face actually although the record was not that specific here but they were in the same room during that twenty minute waiting period the officer testified in our case that he asked miss bell to show him if she had anything in her mouth and she opened her mouth and showed him there was he said no foreign objects there he waited the twenty minutes and they did the test bell's testimony was that during that twenty minutes she was suffering from the effects of gerd but there is no outward indication that the testimony in the body case d was similar there is not necessarily an outward indication a sign that someone would know that an individual was suffering from this condition so the trial court pointed to a rd district decision people versus russell trial the other issue the rd issue that we have raised in our brief is that during the cross examination of mr bell that the state actually violated doyle versus ohio during miss bell's testimony she testified as to what her condition was what her medical condition was during the state's cross examination of miss bell she was asked whether at any point in time she had offered to the officer the information the medical information that she suffered from gerd she said that she had not during closing argument rebuttal argument the state argued that miss intent attempt to impeach a defendant with evidence of post miranda silence which is what they did here they essentially put her in a position of being forced to offer an explanation to the police officer about her medical condition and her failure to do so was used against her by the state during the argument for all of these reasons we are asking the court to reverse the conviction find that the evidence here was closely honors i may please the court my name is michael lennox and i represent the state in this matter this court should affirm the defendant's dui conviction because one the evidence was not closely balanced such to satisfy the st pro plainer analysis to the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did one of the not appoint an expert witness in a misdemeanor case and three the state's comments on post miranda silence were properly made for impeachment purposes or alternatively were harmless error and reference to the st point your honors the defendant did not object at trial and therefore this issue must be reviewed under the plane or doctrine that offended seeks st pran plane a review which requires a clear and obvious error occur and the evidence be so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant regardless of the seriousness of the air the state concedes as your honor stated that there is clear precedent from people vs belknap that a failure to ask jurors whether they understand th principles is erroneous so the question then becomes whether the evidence in this case is closely balanced or explained another way in for the errors prejudicial this court stated and people versus  fighting to belknap that review in court must make a commonsense analysis of all the evidence and contacts and the assessment must be qualitative and take into account the totality of the circumstances one determining if the evidence is closely balanced this court emphasized and people versus mueller that the evidence must not only be closely bound but must be so closely balanced that they are alone threaten to tip the scales of justice against that if and finally the supreme court provides precedent and people versus sutherland and people vs nailer that the wait to be given to witnesses testimony the credibility of witnesses resolution of inconsistency and conflicts in the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony are the responsibility of the trier of fact and a credibility contacts exist where the evidence in a case boils down to the testimony of witnesses that provide alternate versions of events and no additional evidence is introduced to contradict or corroborate either version of events in this case a breathalyzer test was  corroboration of the officers testimony the defendant suggests that the breathalyzer test was invalid which leads into the nd issue but before you move there that determination was decided by the nailers credibility contest is not no additional evidence that both sides agree is valid dispositive in damning no the credibility contest language as no additional evidence is introduced to contradict or corroborate either version of events therefore since there is corroborating evidence on behalf of the state that offends person st prong plan or narrative analysis fails in reference to the nd issue the court refused a trial court's denial of a motion for an expert witness for an abuse of discretion standard and an abuse of discretion only occurs where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court n people versus russell which opposing counsel reference the rd district appellate court review the case and which the lower court did not appoint an expert witness for an indigent abuse us discretion in denying the appointment the defendant made the best argument against this issue in her grief when stating on page twenty five of her brief the trial court was bound to follow  the trial court simply could not have abused its discretion if it was following binding present if the standard of once i understand it she is asked or that disagree with the ye honor but in terms of the the trial court following binding precedent which she states in her brief they simply cannot have abused their discretion by following binding pre t if the standard were to be de novo instead on this issue the policy argument that the defendant asserts might be warranted but without any citation to authority showing how the trial court allegedly abused its discretion testified that she drank a shot of alcohol and was experiencing acid reflux when she took the breathalyzer test the entirety of the record say for her own testimony disagrees with her in the secure common law record on page five t her in her van which factually did not happen yet she also claims to remember the exact time she experienced her chronic acid reflux condition which coincidentally coincided with the  where she's now she i believe she pulled into her own residence after the stop was initiated away from her residence and she continued on to her residence pulled and that's where the or two stop signs away but the the arresting officer in the record also states that he thought that she was trying to take off on him that was his direct language  testified the defendant had glassy red eyes her breath smelled of alcohol she had delayed responses and slurred speech when she was pulled over on pages one hundred and ninety six through one hundred and ninety seven the arresting officer testified the defendant told him she had been drinking on page two await the arresting officer testified that he had the defendant perform in three field sobriety tests and the defendant gave the maximum number of indicators of intoxication on all three field sobriety tests on page one hundred and eighty seven dollars the officer testified that the breathalyzer test itself has a failsafe that will cancel the test if mount alcohol is detected and provide an error reading on page two to eleven the officer testified that he observed in the defendant for twenty minutes and he did not observe her birth belts vomit or throw up her mouth was also inspected to see if anything foreign was present and she also verbal he confirmed that there was nothing in her mouth and on page two hundred and twelve the officer testifies that the test did not result in an error and that lack of error can also be seen in the state exhibit three in reference to my last issue however your honors a defendant post arrest silence cannot be used as opposing counsel stated to impeach the testimony trial testimony or otherwise create an inference of guilt however there are two exceptions to the rule the defendant's post or a silence may be used for impeachment purposes when the defendant testifies at trial that she gave an ex cop atory statement  burping and that there was stuff in her mouth and the the state's inquiry did not refer to the defendant's right to remain silent rather the state asked the defendant why if her testimony were true did just a couple of points the list of factual references that council made the stopped my understanding as occurred approximately eight that original stop occurred about two blocks away from her home the officers testimony was that he followed her she pulled into her parking lot he also testified that that happens frequently because people don't like to stop on the side of the road at night it's dangerous did not abuse its discretion under those circumstances and our case mr bell is not asking for expert witness fees because the state had an expert or because she has no better reason miss bell is looking subsequently suppressed the only difference here is money men that know could not bring her private physician to court for her let me ask this question if you have well no defense perspective obviously but it would give her inputs those two pieces together the fact that she has learning can testify to guard does not it does not attack the validity of those test results in the navy decision the supreme court said they needed that expert to make the connection between the condition and the invalid test so that's why the difference here is misspelled just