NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

2020 IL App (3d) 180174-U

Order filed July 24, 2020 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2020 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

SEAN COCHREN, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 10th Judicial Circuit, 

Tazewell County, Illinois. 

Appeal No. 3-18-0174 

Circuit No. 15-DT-462 

Honorable Frank W. Ierulli, 

Judge, Presiding. 

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices McDade and O’Brien concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The State proved defendant’s guilt of driving under the influence beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

¶ 2 Defendant, Sean Cochren, appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of 

alcohol (DUI). He contends the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed 

the offense. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
- 2 - 

¶ 4 The State charged defendant with DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2014)). The cause 

proceeded to a jury trial.

¶ 5 Sergeant Jeffrey Miller testified that he was dispatched to a single-vehicle accident at 

approximately 5 a.m. on September 27, 2015. When he arrived at the accident, he observed 

defendant’s vehicle parked in the right-hand lane of the roadway. The vehicle was sitting in a large 

puddle of fluid, with all four tires flat and two front airbags deployed. He observed a trail of fluid

from defendant’s vehicle back to a median where he saw tire marks and more fluid leading to 

another median with tire marks and debris that appeared to be from a vehicle. 

¶ 6 When defendant exited his vehicle, he appeared to be slightly unsteady on his feet. Miller 

smelled an odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from defendant’s breath. Defendant’s speech 

was slurred, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. When Miller asked defendant what he hit

with his vehicle, defendant responded “nothing.” Later, he told police he had trouble with his tires 

going flat. When an officer asked where he was coming from, defendant stated, he was coming 

from the Chili’s restaurant where he worked. 

¶ 7 Given these observations, Miller requested that defendant perform field sobriety tests. At 

first, defendant did not respond to Miller’s request. After Miller repeated the question and told 

defendant that he “wanted to make sure he was okay to drive, [defendant] stated obviously he can’t 

drive.” Miller arrested defendant after he refused the field sobriety tests. At the police department, 

Miller asked defendant to submit to an alcohol breath test. Defendant did not respond to Miller’s 

request. Miller recorded the absence of a response as a refusal. 

¶ 8 The State introduced into evidence the dash camera recording taken from Miller’s squad 

car. The video showed the interaction between defendant and Miller at the scene. The video shows 

Miller arriving at the scene of the accident. When defendant exited his vehicle, he appeared to 
- 3 - 

sway. As Miller questioned defendant, defendant did not respond to many of Miller’s questions

and placed telephone calls. Defendant told Miller that he was trying to get a ride. At times, 

defendant’s speech sounded slurred as he responded to Miller’s questions and spoke on his 

telephone. Defendant denied jumping the median and claimed to not know what happened.

Defendant refused to submit to field sobriety tests, noting he “obviously” could not drive and that 

there was “no point.” After defendant refused the field sobriety tests, Miller placed defendant under 

arrest. 

¶ 9 The State also introduced into evidence the booking room video. The video recorded 

Miller’s multiple requests that defendant submit to an alcohol breath test. Defendant did not move 

or verbally respond to the requests. Later in the video, defendant discussed with another officer 

his difficulty finding shoes that fit. He stated that because of the way his feet are shaped, he has 

poor balance and is “always stumbling.” He also explained that raccoons ran out in front of him, 

causing the accident. 

¶ 10 The jury found defendant guilty of DUI. The court sentenced him to 10 weekends in jail

and 12 months of probation. 

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 On appeal, defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt of DUI. Defendant contends that the evidence failed to show that he consumed 

alcohol prior to driving, and if it did show consumption, then the State failed to prove that his 

mental faculties were so impaired as to reduce his ability to think and act with ordinary care. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find a rational trier of fact could 

have found defendant guilty of DUI. 
- 4 - 

¶ 13 When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘the relevant 

question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson 

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence, it is not the function of this court to retry the defendant.” Id. “[T]he reviewing court must 

allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution.” People v. 

Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004). “ ‘ “[T]he trier of fact is not required to disregard 

inferences which flow normally from the evidence before it, nor need it search out all possible 

explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a level of reasonable doubt.” ’ ” People 

v. Newton, 2018 IL 122958, ¶ 24 (quoting People v. Hardman, 2017 IL 121453, ¶ 37, quoting 

People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009)). The trier of fact must also “resolve conflicts in the 

testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the facts.” People v. Gray, 

2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35. A reviewing court will not replace the trier of fact’s judgment with its own 

regarding the weight of the evidence or witnesses’ credibility. Id. “A conviction will be reversed 

only where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that it justifies a 

reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67. 

¶ 14 To prove defendant guilty of DUI, the State needed to show that defendant drove or was in 

actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) 

(West 2014). “A person is under the influence of alcohol when, as a result of drinking any amount 

of alcohol, his mental or physical faculties are so impaired as to reduce his ability to think and act 

with ordinary care.” Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 23.29 (4th ed. 2000). 
- 5 - 

¶ 15 First, defendant argues the State failed to prove that he consumed alcohol. The State proved

through circumstantial evidence that defendant had consumed alcohol. Miller testified that 

defendant’s breath smelled of an alcoholic beverage, he appeared unsteady, his speech was slurred, 

and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Together, this evidence indicated that defendant had 

consumed alcohol. See, e.g., People v. Meo, 2018 IL App (2d) 170135, ¶ 29 (defendant’s glassy 

and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, plus fumbling 

actions, admission to drinking, and refusal to take a breath test was evidence of impairment caused 

by alcohol consumption). Additionally, defendant’s refusal to submit to field sobriety and breath 

tests indicated a consciousness of guilt. See People v. Johnson, 218 Ill. 2d 125, 140 (2005). Given

this evidence, the jury reasonably found that defendant had consumed alcohol. 

¶ 16 Second, defendant argues the State did not prove that his alcohol consumption impaired 

his mental faculties to reduce his ability to think and act with ordinary care. Here, the evidence of 

the damage to defendant’s vehicle plus Miller’s observations of defendant’s unsteadiness and 

slurred speech permitted the jury to reasonably infer that defendant’s alcohol consumption 

impaired his ability to think and act with ordinary care. See Meo, 2018 IL App (2d) 170135, ¶ 29. 

¶ 17 Third, defendant contends that the squad car video contradicted Miller’s testimony that he 

was unsteady on his feet and slurred his speech. Any variance between Miller’s testimony 

regarding defendant’s impairment and the video evidence presented a question of fact for the jury 

to decide. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. From our review of the video, defendant appeared unsteady 

as he exited his vehicle, and hisspeech sounded slurred at several points in the video. This evidence 

was consistent with Miller’s testimony about the clues of impairment. Therefore, the jury 

reasonably accepted Miller’s testimony regarding the evidence of impairment. 
- 6 - 

¶ 18 Fourth, defendant argues that there are other explanations, aside from alcohol consumption, 

for his accident and refusal to complete the field sobriety and breath tests. These differing 

explanations created a credibility determination for the jury, and we will not substitute our 

judgment for that of the jury. See Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35. At trial, the jury heard defendant’s

alternative explanation for the damage to his vehicle as well as his excuses for refusing the field

sobriety tests. Ultimately, the jury found defendant’s explanations incredible. This determination 

was reasonable given the weight of the evidence that indicated that defendant had consumed 

alcohol, and his resulting impairment caused the damage to his vehicle and prompted his refusal 

to submit to the field sobriety tests. 

¶ 19 Finally, defendant argues that our decision is directed by People v. Day, 2016 IL App (3d) 

150852, ¶ 36. In Day, this court reviewed a probable cause to arrest determination. At the hearing 

that preceded the probable cause determination, the arresting officer testified that he observed 

defendant’s eyes to be glassy and bloodshot. Defendant told the officer that he had consumed 

alcohol. Defendant did not exhibit any evidence of poor driving. The circuit court found the officer 

did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI. On appeal, we affirmed the circuit court’s 

ruling. Id. ¶ 38. We held “[t]he consumption of alcoholic beverages, however, even considered in 

conjunction with bloodshot or glassy eyes, may not alone give rise to probable cause.” Id. at ¶ 36. 

¶ 20 We find that our prior decision in Day does not direct the outcome of this case. This case 

differs from Day in that we are not reviewing a probable cause determination. Nor are we 

reviewing a case where the only indications of alcohol consumption and impairment were the 

defendant’s bloodshot, glassy eyes, and statement that he consumed alcohol. Unlike Day, in 

addition to Miller’s observations regarding defendant’s eyes, Miller noted that defendant’s speech 
- 7 - 

was slurred, he was unsteady, and his breath smelled of alcoholic beverage. Given the totality of 

these facts, we find the State proved defendant’s guilt of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt. 

¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County. 

¶ 23 Affirmed.