Court Opinion

ID: 9742802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:20:40.130105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:36.791641
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN, specially concurring: Although I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm defendant’s conviction, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred by admitting the HGN test. To reach that conclusion, the majority had to reject the fifth district’s decision in Buening that "HGN test results are admissible, as is any other evidence of a defendant’s behavior, to prove that the defendant is under the influence of alcohol, provided a proper foundation had been laid.” Buening, 229 Ill. App. 3d at 546, 592 N.E.2d at 1227-28. I disagree with the majority’s rejection of Buening because, in my opinion, it is a thoughtful, well-reasoned decision. Further, although the majority concedes that the third district has also decided to follow Buening (see Wiebler, 266 Ill. App. 3d at 339, 640 N.E.2d at 27), the majority apparently finds Wiebler insufficiently persuasive as well. An important reason for the majority’s rejection of Buening (and Blake, which Buening cited as persuasive) appears to be that those courts took judicial notice of various published articles in reaching their conclusions. The majority holds as follows: "While it may be proper for a trial court to take judicial notice of numerous articles, we believe it is improper for this court to decide the validity or acceptance of a scientific test on such a basis.” 289 Ill. App. 3d at 332. The majority cites no authority to support this assertion, and I believe none exists. "Judicial notice, adjudicative and legislative, may also be taken by any court of appellate jurisdiction even if the taking of judicial notice was refused by the trial court or not requested below. 735 ILCS 5/8—1002; May Department Stores v. Teamsters Union Local #743, 64 Ill. 2d 153, 355 N.E.2d 7 (1976); In re Ersch’s Estate, 29 Ill. 2d 576, 195 N.E.2d 149 (1964); Lubershane v. Village of Glencoe, 63 Ill. App. 3d 874, 20 Ill. Dec. 681, 380 N.E.2d 890 (1978). However, an appellate court will not take judicial notice of evidentiary material not presented below that is critical to a proper determination of the issues between the parties. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Constr., 96 Ill. 2d 159, 70 Ill. Dec. 465, 449 N.E.2d 812 (1983).” M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 201.1, at 53 (6th ed. 1994). The exception discussed in the last sentence does not apply to resolving the validity of HGN testing under Frye. This court should accept the statement of Buening that trial courts need not conduct future Frye hearings regarding the admissibility of HGN tests. On two recent occasions, this court has similarly concluded that Frye hearings are not necessary regarding scientific subjects — namely, DNA testing in general and certain methodologies of that testing in particular. In People v. Lipscomb, 215 Ill. App. 3d 413, 432, 574 N.E.2d 1345, 1357 (1991), this court held that DNA identification procedures are "generally accepted within the particular scientific fields involved” and are admissible. In People v. Pope, 284 Ill. App. 3d 695, 703, 672 N.E.2d 1321, 1327 (1996), this court held that the polymerase chain reaction based method of DNA typing was "now generally accepted in the relevant scientific communities involved, and trial courts need not conduct future Frye hearings on this issue.” Although it is true that we had more extensive trial court records to review in both Lipscomb and Pope than did the fifth district in Buening, I nonetheless am satisfied that the decision reached in Buening was correct. The majority’s decision will have serious consequences. Prosecutors in the medium-sized counties of this state file hundreds of DUI charges annually, and dozens of those ultimately go to trial. Because of this volume, and because these cases almost always constitute misdemeanors, precise dates for trial — often necessary to obtain expert witnesses to come to court to testify — are difficult to obtain. These logistical concerns, coupled with the expense of providing expert testimony for misdemeanor cases, will combine to force prosecutors to forego the use of HGN tests, thus thwarting the truth-seeking purposes of trials. And all this for reasons that other courts nationwide have rejected. One of the most recent courts to address this issue is the Supreme Court of Delaware, In Zimmerman (No. 130 1996, slip op. at 3 n.11), that court cited approvingly an earlier decision of the Delaware Superior Court in Ruthardt, to the effect that, "[w]hen establishing a foundation for HGN tests, future cases are not required to establish that the HGN test is reasonably relied upon by experts.” The Ruthardt court, in concluding that experts view HGN evidence as reasonably reliable, explained, in part, as follows: "The bulk of the scientific research indicates that the potential error rate of a properly administered HGN test is lower than all field[-]sobriety tests that are routinely admitted into evidence. Moreover, most of the studies, scientific articles, state court decisions!,] and other literature on the subject that this Court has reviewed establish that the test is a reliable tool if properly administered. In fact, recent cases on HGN evidence reveal that the law has progressed beyond the issue of admissibility towards an emphasis on defining foundation requirements and the qualification[s] of those who administer the test.” Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 360. In Taylor (No. CUM—95—706, slip op. at 4), the Supreme Court of Maine also addressed the scientific reliability of HGN tests and wrote the following: "The scientific studies, law review articles, and other literature on the subject of HGN testing, as well as the case law, demonstrate that the HGN test is reliable if an officer properly administers it. We are persuaded by these authorities and conclude that the results of the HGN test should be admissible if a proper foundation is laid for their introduction in evidence. A proper foundation shall consist of evidence that the officer or administrator of the HGN test is trained in the procedure and the test was properly administered.” Like the Supreme Courts of Delaware and Maine, we too should be "progress[ing] beyond the issue of admissibility” (Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 360) and defining foundation requirements. The majority’s decision constitutes a step backward.