Court Opinion

ID: 9861463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:04:45.914839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:31.433886
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GREEN, specially concurring: I concur in the decision to reverse and remand. I agree that further foundation testimony was necessary to introduce the breathalyzer test results. I do not agree that testimony that defendant performed well on field sobriety tests at the time of his arrest was not relevant to his defense to the per se offense charged. Circumstantial evidence of the impaired behavior of an accused close to the time of driving is material evidence of the BAG of the accused at that time. (People v. Kappas (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 123, 128-29, 458 N.E.2d 140, 143-44; People v. Malik (1983), 113 Ill. App. 3d 206, 212, 446 N.E.2d 931, 935.) Logically, evidence of lack of impairment in performing standard tests for intoxication is also relevant evidence of a relatively low BAC of an accused at the time. If a proper offer of proof was made in regard to this evidence, the circuit court’s refusal to admit the evidence would have been a breach of discretion and reversible error.