People v. Heineman

2023 IL 127854

216 N.E.3d 204

465 Ill.Dec. 953

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Ryan J. HEINEMAN, Appellant.

Docket No. 127854

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed January 20, 2023

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Thomas A. Lilien, Deputy Defender, and Fletcher P. Hamill, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Elgin, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Katherine M. Doersch and Alasdair Whitney, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Ryan J. Heineman, was the driver in a single-vehicle accident that resulted in the death of his passenger, Tanya McDonough. Following a jury trial in the circuit court of McHenry County, defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (aggravated DUI) ( 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1), (2), (d)(1)(F) (West 2016)). The circuit court merged the aggravated DUI counts and sentenced defendant to six years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

¶ 2 At defendant's trial, Marc Fisher—one of the officers who investigated defendant's case—testified that he was familiar with Title 20, section 1286.40, of the Illinois Administrative Code (Administrative Code) ( 20 Ill. Adm. Code 1286.40 (2015) ) and had received training on that section throughout the years. Fisher explained that section 1286.40 provides a mathematical formula for converting blood serum alcohol concentration into a whole blood equivalent. Fisher testified—over objection—that he learned of defendant's blood serum alcohol concentration test results and could apply section 1286.40 ’s conversion formula to those results. He explained that, to do this, "[y]ou would divide the blood serum level, which in this case is .155, by 1.18 to get a [whole blood alcohol concentration of] [.]131," which Fisher confirmed exceeds the legal limit for DUI in Illinois.

¶ 3 On appeal, defendant maintained, inter alia , that the State failed to prove his whole blood alcohol concentration was at or above 0.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood because it relied on Fisher's lay testimony concerning the conversion factor in section 1286.40 to convert the results of his blood serum alcohol concentration test into its whole blood equivalent. 2021 IL App (2d) 190689, ¶ 1, 451 Ill.Dec. 958, 184 N.E.3d 545. The appellate court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Fisher to testify about his training and experience with the conversion factor and its application to convert defendant's blood serum alcohol concentration into a whole blood equivalent. Id. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction, but it found the circuit court abused its discretion in denying defendant's posttrial motion to substitute counsel and, thus, vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for new posttrial proceedings including, if necessary, sentencing. Id. We now affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the appellate court.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On August 11, 2016, defendant was charged, by indictment, with two counts of aggravated DUI ( 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1), (2), (d)(1)(F) (West 2016)). Count I alleged that on or about June 26, 2016, defendant committed the offense of aggravated DUI by knowingly driving a motor vehicle while the alcohol concentration in his blood was 0.08 or more, in violation of section 11-501(a)(1) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (id. § 11-501(a)(1) ) and, while doing so, was involved in a motor vehicle accident that proximately caused Tanya's death, in violation of section 11-501(d)(1)(F) of the Vehicle Code (id. § 11-501(d)(1)(F) ). Count II alleged that on or about June 26, 2016, defendant committed the offense of aggravated DUI by knowingly driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of section 11-501(a)(2) of the Vehicle Code (id. § 11-501(a)(2) ) and, while doing so, was involved in a motor vehicle accident that proximately caused Tanya's death, in violation of section 11-501(d)(1)(F) of the Vehicle Code (id. § 11-501(d)(1)(F) ).

¶ 6 Jury Trial

¶ 7 The matter proceeded to a jury trial. We limit our discussion of the testimony and evidence to that which is relevant to the issues on appeal. Testimony established that defendant and Tanya were neighbors and longtime friends. On the evening of June 25, 2016, through the early morning of June 26, 2016, defendant and Tanya hosted a birthday party for Tanya at both of their homes. Guests in attendance visited back and forth between the two homes.

¶ 8 Justin Moberg testified that Tanya was his aunt and he became acquainted with defendant when he visited Tanya's home on past occasions. Justin and his friend, Zach, attended Tanya's birthday party on the dates in question. More than 20 guests attended, and all the adults were drinking alcohol. Justin testified that neither he nor Zach drank at the party because they were both minors. At the party, Justin observed defendant drinking "decent size[d] cups" of Jack Daniels mixed with Coke. Justin testified that defendant was drinking all day and he observed defendant "pour more than one drink of a very tall glass of *** Jack and Coke."

¶ 9 Justin testified that at some point during the party, Tanya had an argument with her fiancé, Thomas Rice. Tanya was agitated after the argument and left the party on foot. Justin and Zach went after Tanya because she had been drinking. Justin testified that they found her lying in a ditch along State Park Road and they helped her to her feet. Subsequently, defendant arrived in his Jeep and drove into the ditch. Justin testified that Tanya got into the Jeep and defendant pulled forward and ran over two "decent size[d] trees." Justin told defendant that they should not be driving because they had been drinking. Justin confirmed that defendant was driving and Tanya was in the passenger seat. Justin testified that defendant drove back to the party with Tanya in the Jeep, but he and Zach walked back "because we weren't getting in the vehicle because they had been drinking and we knew it wasn't safe."

¶ 10 Justin testified that, when he and Zach returned to the party, he saw defendant and Tanya leave in the Jeep once again with defendant driving and Tanya in the passenger seat. Justin did not recall representing in his statement to police that defendant and Tanya had already left by the time he and Zach returned to the party. Justin clarified that, if he did make that statement, "it was a mistake because I did see them leave."

¶ 11 Justin testified that, after defendant and Tanya left, efforts were made to call them to determine their whereabouts, but they did not answer their phones initially. Defendant eventually called back, indicating that there was an accident and he "was pinned behind the wheel and he could hear somebody screaming, but he didn't know who it was." Justin explained that defendant "had no remembrance of who was in the car with him" and that Justin's mother, Michelle, had to remind defendant that it was Tanya. Justin testified that he and Michelle attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate defendant and Tanya. While driving home the next morning, Michelle and Justin discovered a roadblock, and officers confirmed that defendant's Jeep had been in an accident.

¶ 12 Michelle Moberg testified that she is Justin's mother and Tanya's aunt. Michelle previously worked as an event coordinator and had 20 years of experience as a bartender. Michelle testified she arrived at Tanya's birthday party around 12:30 a.m. on June 26, 2016, and observed defendant drinking a large tumbler—"[a]bout three times the size" of an average beer—containing "[a]bout a 50-50 mix" of Jack Daniels and Coke. Michelle reported that defendant "drank the one when he made me mine, and then he was pouring himself another one." Michelle also saw defendant consume two Jell-O shots, made of Jell-O, water, and vodka combined to make alcoholic Jell-O.

¶ 13 Michelle—who observed drunk people at her job on a daily basis—opined that defendant was drunk at the party. She explained that defendant is "pretty quiet" and "not very outspoken" but, at the party, "[h]is eyes were glassy. He was very outgoing. Very bouncy. Very alert. Just more talkative than he normally would be."

¶ 14 Michelle confirmed that Tanya left the party on foot around 1 a.m. after arguing with Thomas. Michelle began pursuing Tanya but gave up and returned to the party because she was tired and sore from spending the previous day packing and moving. Michelle confirmed that Justin and Zach went after Tanya, as neither of them had consumed alcohol. Michelle testified that after Justin and Zach started after Tanya, defendant said, "I'll go." Michelle observed defendant walk out the door, but she did not see him get into his vehicle.

¶ 15 Michelle testified that she was in the house with Thomas when Justin and Zach returned and reported that defendant and Tanya had left again. Evidence established that Michelle called defendant on his cell phone at 2:45 a.m. but he did not answer. Defendant returned Michelle's phone call at 2:53 a.m. and told her "that they had been in an accident. He was upside down in his car. He was trapped behind the steering wheel in his seat belt and he heard a woman screaming, but there was nobody in his car so he didn't know who it was." Michelle testified that she told defendant that it was Tanya and, when defendant told Tanya who he was talking to, "[s]he started screaming. *** She was screaming my name. She was screaming, [‘]Sean.[’]" Michelle explained that the name "could have just been mine because the way she normally talks to me. She normally calls me Shell" and "Shell and Sean sound alike."

¶ 16 Michelle testified that she asked defendant where they were but he did not know. Accordingly, Michelle urged defendan...