{
  "id": 3642421,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN C. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1986-09-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201486\u20140045",
  "first_page": "4",
  "last_page": "6",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "148 Ill. App. 3d 4"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "446 N.E.2d 931",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 Ill. App. 3d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3626080
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/113/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.E.2d 743",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 3d 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2507884
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/23/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 413,
    "char_count": 6065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.443425699853895e-08,
      "percentile": 0.484687138130447
    },
    "sha256": "c09f8ee8c0d59feb93b1195438060f45735e16e5b4d7d6edd2af96a71616bd4c",
    "simhash": "1:57af239692b02381",
    "word_count": 996
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:24.109479+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. STEVEN C. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion_of the court:\nDefendant, Steven Johnson, was charged in two counts with driving under the influence of alcohol (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95\u00bd, pars. 11\u2014501(a)(1), (a)(2)). He was tried by a jury and found guilty on both counts as charged. The court subsequently sentenced defendant to a one-year period of conditional discharge, five days of periodic imprisonment, and a fine of $200 plus costs.\nThe facts underlying the charges brought against defendant will be set forth here only as needed to resolve the issue on appeal. On February 26, 1985, Officer Lawrence Weston of the Peoria police department observed defendant in a parked car along a residential street with his head pressed against the window on the driver\u2019s side. Exhaust smoke was emanating from the tail pipe. The officer parked his marked squad car and approached defendant\u2019s vehicle. As the officer did so, defendant slid across the front seat, turned the car off, and got out on the passenger side.\nWeston noted that defendant exuded an odor of alcohol and that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Defendant failed the sobriety field tests he was given at the scene and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 11\u2014501(a)(2)).\nDefendant agreed to take a breathalyzer test. This was administered by Officer Mark Chittick at the police station. The intoxilizer machine registered an alcohol concentration of .25.\nAt trial, defendant admitted on cross-examination that he was drunk at all times in question, but denied that he had ever turned the ignition on in the car after becoming drunk. Defendant testified that he had parked his car at his brother\u2019s home around 1 p.m. and then he had gone to a tavern. There, he had imbibed several alcoholic drinks, screwdrivers. He walked back to his car around 4 p.m. and lay down in the front seat, wrapped up in overcoats, waiting for his brother to return home. Defendant stated that he was unable to start the car at that point because part of the ignition system had come off.\nDefendant further testified that he had belched several times at the police station prior to and during the administration of the breathalyzer test. Neither Officer Weston nor Officer Chittick observed the defendant belching, burping, or vomiting at the police station.\nIn this appeal, defendant claims error in the admission of the results of the breathalyzer test. Defense counsel first raised an objection when State\u2019s exhibit No. 1, the intoxilizer test record, was offered into evidence. Defense counsel contended that the test administrator, Officer Chittick in this case, had not adhered to Rule 601(a) of the Department of Public Health Standards for testing breath for alcohol.\nThe rule in question requires \u201ccontinuous observation of the subject for at least twenty (20) minutes prior to collection of the breath specimen, during which period the subject must not have ingested alcohol, food, drink, regurgitated, vomited or smoked.\u201d The rule must be followed if the chemical analysis is to be considered valid evidence of intoxication under section 11 \u2014 501(aXl) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 11\u2014501.2(a)(l)).\nDefendant contends that the court improperly permitted the State to aggregate the 20-minute observatory period by adding an approximate 10-minute period of observation by Officer Chittick to the approximate 20-minute period during which the arresting officer, Weston, had observed defendant prior to the test. Defendant theorizes that the rule at issue requires that the machine operator (Chittick) observe for the entire 20-minute period. He further theorizes that his belching during ths time he was being observed by Officer Weston invalidates the test.\nWe find defendant\u2019s position untenable because nothing in the Public Health Standards prohibits belching during the prescribed period (People v. Crawford (1974), 23 Ill. App. 3d 398, 318 N.E.2d 743) and nothing proscribes the aggregation of observations by two officers to satisfy the 20-minute period. Moreover, even if we were to find defendant\u2019s theory on firm legal ground, the error he complains of is harmless because such error would not negate his guilt of the offense of which he stands convicted.\nSignificantly, the court sentenced defendant on a single offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. The court did not enter judgments of conviction on the jury\u2019s verdicts. Ergo, defendant stands \u201cconvicted\u201d (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 2\u20145) of a single offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. And, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we may assume that such conviction was properly entered upon the verdict of guilty under section 11\u2014 501(a)(2), which does not require admission of the intoxilizer test results. Defendant admitted, at trial that he was intoxicated from 4 p.m. until at least the time he took the breathalyzer test on February 26, 1985. Under these circumstances, defendant cannot claim prejudice as a result of our determination that he was properly convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol under section 11 \u2014 501(a)(2). See People v. Malik (1983), 113 Ill. App. 3d 206, 446 N.E.2d 931 (an error affecting a charge under section 11 \u2014 502(a)(2) did not taint the jury\u2019s guilty verdict on a section 11 \u2014 501(a)(1) charge where no evidence was presented on the section 11 \u2014 502(aX2) charge which was prejudicial to defendant\u2019s defense of the other section 11 \u2014 501(a)(1) charge).\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County.\nAffirmed.\nSCOTT, P.J., and HEIPLE, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pamela A. Peters, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "John A. Barra, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (Gary F. Gnidovec, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN C. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201486\u20140045\nOpinion filed September 17, 1986.\nPamela A. Peters, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nJohn A. Barra, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (Gary F. Gnidovec, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0004-01",
  "first_page_order": 26,
  "last_page_order": 28
}