Court Opinion

ID: 9706470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:44:19.159264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:22.993077
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the opinion of the court: Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Iroquois County, defendant Carey Lee Hall was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging that the trial court erred in giving Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 23.30B (4th ed. 2001) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B) to the jury. After the trial court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial, it sentenced defendant to one year of conditional discharge and seven days in jail and ordered him to pay a fine of $250. Defendant then filed a timely notice of appeal. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in giving IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B to the jury. BACKGROUND On February 2, 2002, at approximately 4:30 a.m., an Iroquois County deputy sheriff found the defendant asleep in his vehicle in the middle of an intersection. The deputy knocked on the window and shined a flashlight into the defendant’s face. The defendant did not respond for three to four minutes. Then, he looked up at the deputy and the deputy asked defendant to roll down his window. Instead, defendant drove away. Defendant did not stop his vehicle until after the deputy followed him with his emergency lights on. When the defendant stepped out of the car, he lost his balance and grabbed the door to catch himself. The deputy thought the defendant was disoriented, confused and smelled of alcohol. The deputy believed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant refused to take a Breathalyzer test. Defendant testified that he had not consumed any alcoholic beverages that evening and that he could not drink because of his medical conditions. The defendant is a manic-depressive and has Crohn’s disease. He testified that he takes “20 pills a day” for these conditions. Defendant also testified that he refused to take the Breathalyzer test because he was concerned there would be a false reading because of the medications he was taking, not because he was concerned about alcohol being in his system. During the trial, the People tendered IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B, which was given to the jury over defendant’s objection. The instruction reads as follows: “The fact that a person was legally entitled to use any combination of drugs and alcohol is not a defense to a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol.” IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B. ANALYSIS  The standard of review in determining whether a trial court’s submission of an instruction is erroneous is an abuse of discretion. People v. Garcia, 188 Ill. 2d 265, 283, 721 N.E.2d 574, 584 (1999). The purpose of jury instructions is to convey to the jurors the correct principles of law applicable to the facts so that they can arrive at a correct conclusion according to the law and the evidence. People v. Williams, 181 Ill. 2d 297, 318, 692 N.E.2d 1109, 1121 (1998).  Defendant claims that it was error to give IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B because it instructs the jury as to a crime for which the defendant was not charged. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 11 — 501(a)(2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11 — 501(a)(2) (West 2000)), which provides: “A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this state while: (2) under the influence of alcohol[.]” 625 ILCS 5/11— 501(a)(2) (West 2000). Defendant claims IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B should be given only when a person is charged with a violation of section 11 — 501(a)(5) (625 ILCS 5/11 — 501(a)(5) (West 2000)), which provides: “A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this state while: (5) under the combined influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving[.]” 625 ILCS 5/11 — 501(a)(5) (West 2000). IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B is an instruction entitled “Prescription Not a Defense.” It instructs the jury that the use of prescription medicines or the prescribed use of alcohol is not a defense to a charge of DUI. The instruction is almost identical to section 11 — 501(b), which provides: “The fact that any person charged with violating this Section is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof, shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this Section.” 625 ILCS 5/11 — 501(b) (West 2000). This instruction tells the jury that defendant’s use of prescription medications is not a defense to this DUI charge. Defendant claims that he did not raise the defense that he should be acquitted because he was taking prescription medication. He claims that his defense was solely that he had no alcohol in his system at the time of his arrest. However, it was the defendant who brought up the fact that he was taking 20 pills a day for his medical conditions and that this was the reason he refused to take the Breathalyzer test. There was no medical or expert testimony to corroborate whether the medication defendant was taking would lead to a false positive on a Breathalyzer test, or that the effects of the medication could mimic alcohol intoxication. Taking prescription medication is not a defense to a DUI charge. As Justice Holdridge points out in his special concurrence, the jury was properly instructed on all the elements the State had to prove to support a guilty verdict. In light of the evidence put on by the defendant, IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B simply tells the jury that if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest, all of the evidence about the prescription drugs is irrelevant. IPI Criminal 4th No. 23.30B is a correct statement of the law and is applicable to the facts in this case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. CONCLUSION The circuit court of Iroquois County is hereby affirmed. The conviction of the defendant is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.