Opinion
Appeal No. 3-13-0042
08-22-2014
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL E. DAGGETT, Defendant-Appellant.
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois,
Circuit Nos. 12-DT-376 and12-TR-23554
Honorable Robert P. Livas, Judge, Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Holdridge and O'Brien concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident.
¶ 2 Defendant, Michael E. Daggett, was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2012)) and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident (625 ILCS 5/11-601(a) (West 2012)). Defendant appeals, arguing he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident. We affirm.
¶ 3 FACTS
¶ 4 At approximately 4:45 p.m. on March 12, 2012, the police were dispatched to the scene of a vehicle accident where defendant rear-ended a parked car with his truck. After being questioned by Officer Jeren Szmergalski, defendant was arrested and charged with DUI and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2), 11-601(a) (West 2012).
¶ 5 At defendant's bench trial, Timothy Reiter testified that he was driving westbound on a two-way residential street. Reiter observed a truck traveling eastbound and a car parked on the eastbound side of the street. Reiter slowed his vehicle in the event the truck decided to enter his lane of traffic to pass the parked car. Reiter then saw the truck hit the rear end of the parked car with enough force that the car moved forward, noting that parts from the car flew into the air. Reiter did not know how fast the truck was traveling. Reiter testified that the driver of the truck backed up, drove around the parked car, and then drove off.
¶ 6 Daniel Spindle testified that he was the owner of the car that was parked on the side of the street. At the time of the accident, Spindle was inside his house and heard a "loud explosion." When he went outside, he saw that his car was "destroyed." Spindle testified that the back of his trunk ended up in the backseat of the car. Spindle noted that he legally parked his car on the street 10 minutes before it was hit, and it was in perfect shape. Spindle did not see any other vehicles present when he came outside, but 10 minutes later defendant arrived in his truck. Spindle stated that defendant's truck had damage to the front end.
¶ 7 Szmergalski testified that upon arriving at the scene, she observed a car parked on the side of the street with rear-end damage. Szmergalski testified that the bumper of the car was pushed into the trunk area and pieces of metal debris were underneath the car. Defendant's truck was parked behind the car, and it had scrapes and dents to the front end. Defendant was pacing
back and forth behind his truck and continuously coughing. As Szmergalski spoke to defendant, she detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from his breath. Szmergalski also observed that defendant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he was holding onto his truck to balance himself. Defendant admitted drinking three or four beers at a bar approximately 45 minutes before the accident. Defendant explained that after leaving the bar, he went to his vehicle, which was parked three blocks from where the collision occurred. Defendant explained that as he drove his truck, he started having a coughing fit. Defendant told Szmergalski that he should have pulled over because during a coughing fit he has difficulty breathing. Defendant, however, continued driving, stopped at a stop sign, and after continuing through the intersection struck a parked car.
¶ 8 Szmergalski testified that defendant also told her he was legally blind in his right eye and had an ankle injury. Szmergalski administered several field sobriety tests. It was Szmergalski's opinion that defendant failed the tests and that he was under the influence of alcohol. Szmergalski placed defendant under arrest, and he later refused to take a breathalyzer test. A video recording of the stop was played in court. The video showed a narrow residential road that inclined slightly where the accident had occurred.
¶ 9 The trial court found defendant guilty of both offenses. The court denied defendant's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to 12 months of conditional discharge.
¶ 10 ANALYSIS
¶ 11 Defendant argues that State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident, because there was insufficient evidence that he drove carelessly and failed to reduce his speed. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Baskerville, 2012 IL 111056; People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (1985). Under this standard, the reviewing court must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the State. People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311 (2010). A conviction will only be overturned where the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. Id.
¶ 12 To prove defendant guilty of failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant drove carelessly and failed to reduce speed to avoid colliding with a person or vehicle. 625 ILCS 5/11-601(a) (West 2012); People v. Schumann, 120 Ill. App. 3d 518 (1983). The State is not required to prove defendant was exceeding the speed limit because the offense can be committed regardless of the speed of defendant's vehicle or the relevant speed limit. People v. Sturgess, 364 Ill. App. 3d 107 (2006).
¶ 13 Defendant relies on People v. Brant, 82 Ill. App. 3d 847 (1980), to claim that evidence of his intoxication and the fact that a collision occurred, without more, were insufficient to sustain his conviction. Brant, however, is inapposite. In Brant, defendant drove while intoxicated and collided with a parked car that was in a no parking zone and was partially obscured from view by the shade of trees. Thus, there was some indication that defendant may not have been able to clearly see the vehicle he collided with. In this case, by contrast, defendant rear-ended a car that was legally parked on the side of the street. Defendant's only explanation for the collision was that he was having a coughing fit. He offered no other evidence as to why he was unable to avoid striking the parked car. Although the video recording from the scene showed a slight incline in the roadway, there was no indication defendant's view of the parked car was obstructed. There was also evidence that defendant would have been able to pass the vehicle
because Reiter testified that he slowed his vehicle so defendant would be able to pull into Reiter's lane of traffic to pass the parked car.
¶ 14 Additionally, in Brant, defendant testified that upon seeing the parked car, he applied the brakes and skidded into the parked car. Here, defendant rear-ended a legally parked car shortly after stopping at a stop sign. Reiter testified that defendant hit the car with such force that it moved forward and pieces of the car flew into the air. Spindle described the collision as a "loud explosion." As a result of the collision, the trunk and bumper of the car were pushed into the backseat of the car. Thus, there was no evidence that defendant decelerated, and the only reasonable conclusion was that defendant was driving at an excessive rate of speed when the accident occurred.
¶ 15 Based on the circumstances surrounding the collision, we find that a trier of fact could reasonably infer that defendant did not reduce his speed to avoid colliding with the parked car. See Schumann, 120 Ill. App. 3d 518. Accordingly, we find that the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 16 CONCLUSION
¶ 17 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.
¶ 18 Affirmed.