{
  "id": 2532660,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James P. Sullivan, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sullivan",
  "decision_date": "1971-04-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 54396",
  "first_page": "674",
  "last_page": "678",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 Ill. App. 2d 674"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "163 N.E.2d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill.App.2d 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5204401
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/23/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.E.2d 722",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ill.App.2d 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1588960
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/114/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.E.2d 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill.App.2d 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2477064
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/97/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill.App.2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2565038,
        2564206
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/79/0288-01",
        "/ill-app-2d/79/0288-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 A.L.R. 1498",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "year": 1926,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1506"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 P. 76",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1926,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Cal.App. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2087984
      ],
      "year": 1926,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-app/62/0017-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 Colo. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        1932503
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "226"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/123/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Colo. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        89158
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "71"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/132/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 P. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Cal.App. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2145840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-app/67/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.E.2d 127",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill.App.2d 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1594025
      ],
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/110/0081-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 466,
    "char_count": 7006,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08186519754626621
    },
    "sha256": "f12715d302ae42c02bc7ca5cadef3d216eed58e0d70c5771cbec40d7b29a368c",
    "simhash": "1:7902ebbf8efcc0c5",
    "word_count": 1161
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:45:25.950864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James P. Sullivan, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE LEIGHTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal.is to review defendant\u2019s bench trial conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court sentenced him to pay a fine of $100.00 and costs in the sum of $5.00. His driver\u2019s license was \u201c[r] evoked as per statute.\u201d Evidence for the prosecution consisted of a police officer\u2019s testimony and one exhibit. Evidence for the defense consisted of defendant\u2019s testimony and that of a companion.\nApril 6, 1969, at about 1:00 A.M., Officer Patrick O\u2019Neill saw an automobile make a right turn off Lawrence and proceed south on Lincoln Avenue in Chicago. He stopped it approximately 400 feet from the intersection. Defendant was the driver. With him was Charles J. Woods. O\u2019Neill told defendant that he had proceeded through a red light. Defendant said he had not; that the light was yellow. O\u2019Neill smelled the odor of alcohol on defendant\u2019s breath. When he mentioned this, defendant denied he had been drinking. He got out of his car and walked 15 or 17 feet. O\u2019Neill noticed defendant \u201c[s]ort of was\u2014 staggering \u2014 you know \u2014 unsure 8 * * his clothes were a little disarranged \u2014 That\u2019s all.\u201d When the request was made, defendant produced his driver\u2019s license. O\u2019Neill arrested defendant for driving his vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.\nDefendant was put in a squadrol and taken to a police station. When they arrived there, he walked up the steps of the police station unassisted. In the station O\u2019Neill made out an Alcoholic Influence Report. He recorded the odor of alcohol on defendant\u2019s breath as moderate; his eyes were bloodshot; his face was flushed; his clothes disarranged; his attitude was talkative, cocky and his picking up of coins was sure. When O\u2019Neill asked defendant what he had to drink, he either said one drink at two places that evening or \u201cI may have said two or three drinks \u2014I don\u2019t know.\u201d\nAfter the prosecution rested its case, defendant testified that in the evening in question between 11:00 and 11:30 P.M., he met Woods in a restaurant where he ate and had one drink. Next, they went across the street \u201c[t]o Jimmy Lynch * * * and I had one drink there.\u201d Then, he drove to the intersection of Lawrence and Lincoln where he was stopped by Officer O\u2019Neill. Defendant denied he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He insisted that he performed all the tests given him in the police station. His companion, Woods, testified and corroborated defendant\u2019s testimony. After hearing the three witnesses, the court found defendant guilty.\nAlthough several issues are presented for review, the one we resolve is whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that on the evening of April 6, 1969, defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.\nOne of the facts that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was that, at the time alleged, defendant drove a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. (People v. Taylor, 110 Ill.App.2d 81, 249 N.E.2d 127; People v.Ellena (1924), 67 Cal.App. 683, 228 P. 389.) Being \u201cunder the influence of intoxicating liquor\u201d means a condition that makes a person less able, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise clear judgment, and with steady hands and nerves, operate an automobile with safety to himself and to the public. (Dawkins v. Chavez (1955), 132 Colo. 61, 71, 285 P.2d 821; Snyder v. Denver (1951), 123 Colo. 222, 226, 227 P.2d 341.) This condition is proved or disproved in the same manner as is any other disputed fact. The rules of evidence are the same as in other judicial inquiries. Hence, any evidence which tends to establish or negative the condition of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor is admissible. (See People v. McHugh (1923), 62 Cal.App. 17, 216 P. 76; Annot. 42 A.L.R. 1498, 1506 (1926).) Thus, a witness can describe what he observed and give his opinion concerning a driver\u2019s sobriety at the time in question. (See People v. Greenberg, 79 Ill.App.2d 288, 224 N.E.2d 577.) It is the province of the trier of the facts to weigh the evidence (including the opinion of a witness), determine credibility and decide whether the elements of the charge are proved. (People v. Mundorf, 97 Ill.App.2d 130, 239 N.E.2d 690.) However, where review of the record reveals a reasonable doubt that defendant operated a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, this court will reverse. People v. Foster, 114 Ill.App.2d 357, 252 N.E.2d 722.\nIn the case before us, the record discloses that at the scene of the arrest the officer smelled what he later said was a moderate odor of alcohol on defendant\u2019s breath. The only other abnormal behavior he observed was a \u201cstaggering * * * unsure s * *\u201d walk of the defendant a distance of fifteen to seventeen feet; and that defendant\u2019s clothes were \u201ca little disarranged \u2014 that\u2019s all.\u201d When he was asked, defendant produced his license. When he was taken to the police station, defendant walked the steps unassisted. There he answered all qustions. He was able to tell where he had been, what he had eaten and what he had to drink. He insisted that he was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He explained some of O\u2019Neill\u2019s description of his conduct by saying that he suffered from low blood pressure and had an eye injury. No witness contradicted him. As to these facts, his testimony was positive and unimpeached.\nOfficer O\u2019Neill\u2019s testimony was almost entirely in answer to leading questions. He was not asked nor is there any evidence of what experience, if any, O\u2019Neill had in observing persons under the influence of intoxicating liquor. At the conclusion of his testimony, in words that were suggestive, O\u2019Neill was asked, \u201cIn your opinion, the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor?\u201d He answered, \u201cYes, I do.\u201d\nUnder the circumstances shown by the record, the State\u2019s evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on April 6, 1969 defendant drove his automobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We reverse the judgment. People v. Miller, 23 Ill.App.2d 352, 163 N.E.2d 206.\nJudgment reversed.\nMcCORMICK and STAMOS, JJ., concur.\nIll. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 95%, par. 144\n(a) No person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor may drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State.\n(b) * 8 8\nIll. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 95%, par. 144\n(i) 8 8 8\nThe Secretary of State shall revoke the chauffeur\u2019s or operators' license of any person convicted under this section. 888",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE LEIGHTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul R. Goldman, of Chicago, (Sheldon M. Schapiro, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Thomas M. Walsh, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James P. Sullivan, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 54396;\nFirst District\nApril 20, 1971.\nPaul R. Goldman, of Chicago, (Sheldon M. Schapiro, of counsel,) for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Thomas M. Walsh, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0674-02",
  "first_page_order": 698,
  "last_page_order": 702
}
