People v. Cochren

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).
2020 IL App (3d) 180174-UOrder filed July 24, 2020
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
) Tazewell County, Illinois.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-18-0174
v. ) Circuit No. 15-DT-462
)
SEAN COCHREN, )
) Honorable Frank W. Ierulli,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices McDade and O’Brien concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The State proved defendant’s guilt of driving under the influence beyond a
reasonable doubt.
¶2 Defendant, Sean Cochren, appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of
alcohol (DUI). He contends the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed
the offense. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The State charged defendant with DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2014)). The cause
proceeded to a jury trial.
¶5 Sergeant Jeffrey Miller testified that he was dispatched to a single-vehicle accident at
approximately 5 a.m. on September 27, 2015. When he arrived at the accident, he observed
defendant’s vehicle parked in the right-hand lane of the roadway. The vehicle was sitting in a large
puddle of fluid, with all four tires flat and two front airbags deployed. He observed a trail of fluid
from defendant’s vehicle back to a median where he saw tire marks and more fluid leading to
another median with tire marks and debris that appeared to be from a vehicle.
¶6 When defendant exited his vehicle, he appeared to be slightly unsteady on his feet. Miller
smelled an odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from defendant’s breath. Defendant’s speech
was slurred, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. When Miller asked defendant what he hit
with his vehicle, defendant responded “nothing.” Later, he told police he had trouble with his tires
going flat. When an officer asked where he was coming from, defendant stated, he was coming
from the Chili’s restaurant where he worked.
¶7 Given these observations, Miller requested that defendant perform field sobriety tests. At
first, defendant did not respond to Miller’s request. After Miller repeated the question and told
defendant that he “wanted to make sure he was okay to drive, [defendant] stated obviously he can’t
drive.” Miller arrested defendant after he refused the field sobriety tests. At the police department,
Miller asked defendant to submit to an alcohol breath test. Defendant did not respond to Miller’s
request. Miller recorded the absence of a response as a refusal.
¶8 The State introduced into evidence the dash camera recording taken from Miller’s squad
car. The video showed the interaction between defendant and Miller at the scene. The video shows
Miller arriving at the scene of the accident. When defendant exited his vehicle, he appeared to
-2-
sway. As Miller questioned defendant, defendant did not respond to many of Miller’s questions
and placed telephone calls. Defendant told Miller that he was trying to get a ride. At times,
defendant’s speech sounded slurred as he responded to Miller’s questions and spoke on his
telephone. Defendant denied jumping the median and claimed to not know what happened.
Defendant refused to submit to field sobriety tests, noting he “obviously” could not drive and that
there was “no point.” After defendant refused the field sobriety tests, Miller placed defendant under
arrest.
¶9 The State also introduced into evidence the booking room video. The video recorded
Miller’s multiple requests that defendant submit to an alcohol breath test. Defendant did not move
or verbally respond to the requests. Later in the video, defendant discussed with another officer
his difficulty finding shoes that fit. He stated that because of the way his feet are shaped, he has
poor balance and is “always stumbling.” He also explained that raccoons ran out in front of him,
causing the accident.
¶ 10 The jury found defendant guilty of DUI. The court sentenced him to 10 weekends in jail
and 12 months of probation.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 On appeal, defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of DUI. Defendant contends that the evidence failed to show that he consumed
alcohol prior to driving, and if it did show consumption, then the State failed to prove that his
mental faculties were so impaired as to reduce his ability to think and act with ordinary care.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find a rational trier of fact could
have found defendant guilty of DUI.
-3-
¶ 13 When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘the relevant
question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, it is not the function of this court to retry the defendant.” Id. “[T]he reviewing court must
allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution.” People v.
Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004). “ ‘ “[T]he trier of fact is not required to disregard
inferences which flow normally from the evidence before it, nor need it search out all possible
explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a level of reasonable doubt.” ’ ” People
v. Newton, 2018 IL 122958, ¶ 24 (quoting People v. Hardman, 2017 IL 121453, ¶ 37, quoting
People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009)). The trier of fact must also “resolve conflicts in the
testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the facts.” People v. Gray,
2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35. A reviewing court will not replace the trier of fact’s judgment with its own
regarding the weight of the evidence or witnesses’ credibility. Id. “A conviction will be reversed
only where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that it justifies a
reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67.
¶ 14 To prove defendant guilty of DUI, the State needed to show that defendant drove or was in
actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2)
(West 2014). “A person is under the influence of alcohol when, as a result of drinking any amount
of alcohol, his mental or physical faculties are so impaired as to reduce his ability to think and act
with ordinary care.” Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 23.29 (4th ed. 2000).
-4-
¶ 15 First, defendant argues the State failed to prove that he consumed alcohol. The State proved
through circumstantial evidence that defendant had consumed alcohol. Miller testified that
defendant’s breath smelled of an alcoholic beverage, he appeared unsteady, his speech was slurred,
and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Together, this evidence indicated that defendant had
consumed alcohol. See, e.g., People v. Meo, 2018 IL App (2d) 170135, ¶ 29 (defendant’s glassy
and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, plus fumbling
actions, admission to drinking, and refusal to take a breath test was evidence of impairment caused
by alcohol consumption). Additionally, defendant’s refusal to submit to field sobriety and breath
tests indicated a consciousness of guilt. See People v. Johnson, 218 Ill. 2d 125, 140 (2005). Given
this evidence, the jury reasonably found that defendant had consumed alcohol.
¶ 16 Second, defendant argues the State did not prove that his alcohol consumption impaired
his mental faculties to reduce his ability to think and act with ordinary care. Here, the evidence of
the damage to defendant’s vehicle plus Miller’s observations of defendant’s unsteadiness and
slurred speech permitted the jury to reasonably infer that defendant’s alcohol consumption
impaired his ability to think and act with ordinary care. See Meo, 2018 IL App (2d) 170135, ¶ 29.
¶ 17 Third, defendant contends that the squad car video contradicted Miller’s testimony that he
was unsteady on his feet and slurred his speech. Any variance between Miller’s testimony
regarding defendant’s impairment and the video evidence presented a question of fact for the jury
to decide. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. From our review of the video, defendant appeared unsteady
as he exited his vehicle, and his speech sounded slurred at several points in the video. This evidence
was consistent with Miller’s testimony about the clues of impairment. Therefore, the jury
reasonably accepted Miller’s testimony regarding the evidence of impairment.
-5-
¶ 18 Fourth, defendant argues that there are other explanations, aside from alcohol consumption,
for his accident and refusal to complete the field sobriety and breath tests. These differing
explanations created a credibility determination for the jury, and we will not substitute our
judgment for that of the jury. See Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35. At trial, the jury heard defendant’s
alternative explanation for the damage to his vehicle as well as his excuses for refusing the field
sobriety tests. Ultimately, the jury found defendant’s explanations incredible. This determination
was reasonable given the weight of the evidence that indicated that defendant had consumed
alcohol, and his resulting impairment caused the damage to his vehicle and prompted his refusal
to submit to the field sobriety tests.
¶ 19 Finally, defendant argues that our decision is directed by People v. Day, 2016 IL App (3d)
150852, ¶ 36. In Day, this court reviewed a probable cause to arrest determination. At the hearing
that preceded the probable cause determination, the arresting officer testified that he observed
defendant’s eyes to be glassy and bloodshot. Defendant told the officer that he had consumed
alcohol. Defendant did not exhibit any evidence of poor driving. The circuit court found the officer
did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI. On appeal, we affirmed the circuit court’s
ruling. Id. ¶ 38. We held “[t]he consumption of alcoholic beverages, however, even considered in
conjunction with bloodshot or glassy eyes, may not alone give rise to probable cause.” Id. at ¶ 36.
¶ 20 We find that our prior decision in Day does not direct the outcome of this case. This case
differs from Day in that we are not reviewing a probable cause determination. Nor are we
reviewing a case where the only indications of alcohol consumption and impairment were the
defendant’s bloodshot, glassy eyes, and statement that he consumed alcohol. Unlike Day, in
addition to Miller’s observations regarding defendant’s eyes, Miller noted that defendant’s speech
-6-
was slurred, he was unsteady, and his breath smelled of alcoholic beverage. Given the totality of
these facts, we find the State proved defendant’s guilt of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 22 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County.
¶ 23 Affirmed.
-7-