§ 8.6 Evidence

LibraryIllinois DUI and Traffic-Related Decisions (2016 Ed.)

§ 8.6 Evidence

(NOTE: The reader should keep in mind that the United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (June 2009) ruled that certified lab tests regarding drug analysis are subject to the right of confrontation to verify their accuracy. This will have implications regarding the use of written blood tests in DUI and Reckless Homicide prosecutions.)

§ 8.6-1 Blood Test Result

§ 8.6-1(a) Section 11-501.4

§ 8.6-1(a)(1) Admitted Properly

People v. Hoke, 213 Ill. App. 3d 263, 571 N.E.2d 1143, 157 Ill. Dec. 124 (4th Dist. 1991). The trial court's ruling that the written blood test result under ch. 95 1/2, sec. 11-501.4(a) was admissible, was affirmed. The appellate court did not find the statute to be in conflict with Supreme Court Rule 236. Rule 236 prohibits medical records and police reports from admission into evidence as business records. ch. 95 1/2, sec. 11-501.4(a) allows the written blood test result to be admitted as a business record if other statutory prerequisites have been met. (Note Supreme Court Rule 236 has been amended to allow medical records to qualify as business records)

People v. Ethridge, 243 Ill. App. 3d 446, 610 N.E.2d 1305, 183 Ill. Dec. 61 (2d Dist. 1993). Defendant was charged with three counts of reckless homicide. He was found guilty of reckless homicide based upon the count alleging the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and driving into the oncoming lane of traffic. Defendant claimed the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the computer generated printout of a blood test result because the State failed to comply with the requirements of 11-501.4 of the Vehicle Code.

The appellate court first determined and held that computer generated records are equivalent to written test results that were contemplated by sec. 11-501.4. Defendant's claim that the blood test results were not ordered by a physician on duty was rejected because the physician testified that the hospital had a standing order to do a blood test before treatment.

Finally, defendant claimed the results should not have been admitted because there was no evidence as to the specific treatment the physician administered to the defendant. The appellate court acknowledged the doctor did not specify the treatment that was given to defendant but did testify that he relied upon the test results in diagnosing and treating defendant. The test result under sec. 11-501.4 was properly admitted and the conviction was affirmed.

People v. Edmundson, 247 Ill. App....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT