Court Opinion

ID: 9729073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:25:51.543268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.207574
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, specially concurring: I would affirm the trial court on all grounds. The PBT results should be admissible to impeach defendant’s and Brooks’s testimony that defendant had not consumed any alcoholic beverage. The trial court clearly limited the use of the PBT results to impeachment only. This evidence is therefore relevant to an issue in the case, and it should be admitted because its admission does not contravene statutory law or a rule of evidence. See Halsey, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 163-64, 652 N.E.2d at 436. Similarly, use of illegally obtained evidence, otherwise inadmissible, may be used to impeach defendant and his witness where defendant testifies. See People v. James, 153 Ill. App. 3d 131, 133, 505 N.E.2d 1118, 1119 (1987); People v. Campbell, 332 Ill. App. 3d 721, 724, 773 N.E.2d 776, 779 (2002). If defendant’s otherwise inadmissible items of evidence may be admitted for impeachment purposes, so should the PBT results. Moreover, because these PBT results were not used as substantive evidence to establish intoxication, but only as impeachment, they should not be subjected to the standards of admissibility to establish intoxication. If the results may be used to establish probable cause, they should be allowed to establish impeachment, especially where PBT results are not considered inherently unreliable (Halsey, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 163-64, 652 N.E.2d at 436). Further, the proper foundation for this impeachment was provided: “Q. Okay, did you have a portable breath[-]testing device with you in your squad car on March 11th of 2001? A. Yes, I did. Q. And is that portable breath test routinely certified as accurate? A. Yes. Every ninety days we turn it into [sic] the district headquarters in Pesotum, where they then certify it. * * * Q. Did you have the [defendant submit to a portable breath test on March 11th of 2001, prior to placing him under arrest? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what was the result of that portable breath test? MR. APPLEMAN: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: .120.” For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court on all issues, and I specially concur.