People v. Hillis

65 N.E.3d 357

408 Ill.Dec. 135

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Garry L. HILLIS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 4–15–0703.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Sept. 28, 2016.

Elliott Turpin (argued) and Patrick A. Watts, both of Sturycz Watts, L.L.C., of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellant.

Caleb Briscoe, State's Attorney, of Carrollton (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and John M. Zimmerman (argued), all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice APPLETON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 A jury found defendant, Garry L. Hillis, guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11–501(d)(1)(F) (West 2012)), and the trial court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. He appeals on two grounds: (1) the court abused its discretion by granting a motion in limine by the State and by denying his own motion in limine, and (2) it was unproved that he was the driver. We find no abuse of discretion in the rulings on these motions in limine, and looking at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was the driver. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. The Charge

¶ 4 In the information, the State charged defendant with committing the offense of aggravated DUI (625 ILCS 5/11–501(d)(1)(F) (West 2012)) in that, on May 2, 2013, he drove a Ford F–150 pickup truck on Illinois Highway 108 in Greene County, Illinois, while under the influence of alcohol and was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which proximately caused the death of Brandy Gilbert.

¶ 5 B. The Motions and Orders in Limine

¶ 6 Before the jury trial, the parties filed motions in limine. The rulings on two such motions are at issue in this appeal.

¶ 7 1. The State's Motion To Bar a Physician, Charles Earnshaw, Jr., From Reconstructing the Accident

¶ 8 In its "Motion in Limine No. 2," the State said it anticipated the defense would call a physician, Charles Earnshaw, Jr., as an expert witness. (The State's "Motion in Limine No. 1" is not at issue in this appeal.) The State argued that although, judging by his curriculum vitae, Earnshaw "[might] be qualified to testify as to matters that pertain[ed] to [i]nternal [m]edicine," he lacked "the requisite formal education, experience, or scientific expertise to qualify him to testify as to matters discussed in his report as related to accident reconstruction and occupant placement."

¶ 9 According to Earnshaw's curriculum vitae, he has a bachelor's degree in chemistry and a medical degree. He is a retired physician who specialized in internal medicine. Apparently, he never has taken any classes in accident reconstruction (at least none are listed under the heading of "Education"), and his curriculum vitae nowhere mentions any training or experience in that field.

¶ 10 Nevertheless, in a report he wrote for defense counsel, Earnshaw stated:

"I protracted the angle of the slope from the shoulder of the highway to the base of the pole[,] and this angle is between [12] to 15 degrees downward. Assuming highway speeds and a rain[-]slicked asphalt road[,] the victims' truck probably struck the pole between [40] to [60 miles per hour]. * * * The front passenger door received damage that was relatively minor[,] with the major impact occurring to the truck frame behind the front passenger seat and door. A passenger in the rear seat would have experienced the full impact. If [Gilbert] had been the restrained or even unrestrained passenger[,] I doubt that her injuries would have been nearly as severe. If[,] on the other hand [,] she had been the unrestrained driver[,] she would have been hurled at vehicle speed at the roof, door, door frame, and [defendant's] left side with great force. This scenario would best explain the severity and location of her injuries[,] including the bruising of her left anterior thigh from contact with the steering wheel. If [defendant] had been the unrestrained driver[,] he would have suffered severe right[-]sided head and chest injuries but probably less severe than those of [Gilbert]. In addition[,] [Gilbert] would have in all likelihood suffered significant left[-]sided injuries when he struck her. If [defendant] had been a restrained driver[,] his injury would probably be a seatbelt bruise from the left shoulder to his right hip. * * * In conclusion [,] I feel that [Gilbert] was the unrestrained driver and [defendant] was the restrained passenger in this accident but do not have enough evidence to be certain."

¶ 11 Because Earnshaw apparently had no education, training, or experience in accident reconstruction, the State requested, in "Motion in Limine No. 2," that the trial court bar him from "testifying as an expert in matters regarding the reconstruction of the accident involving the [d]efendant, * * * and that before any attempt to elicit testimony of the same from * * * Earnshaw * * *, the proper foundation * * * be demonstrated outside the presence of the jury."

¶ 12 On April 9, 2015, in a pretrial conference, the trial court granted the State's "Motion in Limine No. 2." The order reads: "State motion to deny witness granted."

¶ 13 2. Defendant's Motion To Bar an Accident Reconstructionist, Nathan S. Shigemura, From Opining, on the Basis of Injury Patterns, Who the Driver Was

¶ 14 The State disclosed an expert, Nathan S. Shigemura, who, according to defendant's motion in limine, was "a relatively well-known ‘crash reconstruction’ expert in the State of Illinois." Defendant admitted that Shigemura was "definitely qualified to opine on how the crash in this case occurred," but he argued that Shigemura was unqualified "to opine on who was driving the vehicle at the time of the crash[,] because he base[d] that opinion on the extent of the injuries to [defendant] and Ms. Gilbert, without having any medical training or education."

¶ 15 Shigemura already had given his opinion that defendant was the driver. He had expressed this opinion in a letter of December 6, 2013, to the Greene County sheriff, Robert D. McMillen. A copy of Shigemura's letter to McMillen is in the record; it is attached to defendant's motion in limine as exhibiT a.

¶ 16 In Shigemura's letter, under the heading "Occupant Kinematics " (referring to the movement of vehicle occupants in a crash), he begins by describing how the accident happened: the pickup truck slid diagonally to the right and into a utility pole, as illustrated in a drawing. (Emphasis in original.) The impact was in the area of the passenger door, near the side mirror. The front-seat passenger, Shigemura explains to McMillen, would take the brunt of the impact:

"[T]he front[-]seat passenger would move to the right and forward[,] into the collision region[,] and would sustain severe injuries, predominantly to the right side. The driver's injuries would be less severe than the passenger's since the driver would be f[a]rther from the collision region and not moving into the collision region. The passenger would also be [in between] the driver and collision region[,] thus providing shielding and cushioning for the driver. Ms. Gilbert sustained severe injuries[,] including skull fractures [,] as a result of the crash. The magnitude and locations of the injuries sustained by Ms. Gilbert indicate that she was in the immediate area of the impact at the time of the collision. These injuries led to the death of Ms. Gilbert.

[Defendant] sustained minor injuries, described as ‘bumps and bruises[,]’ in the collision and was treated and released from the hospital the night of the crash. Minor cuts were located on the right arm of [defendant]. While at the hospital[,] [defendant] ‘was complaining of his side hurting.’ When examined at the Greene County [s]heriff's [o]ffice two days after the crash, [defendant] had soreness and a red mark to the left chest area. The bottom of the steering wheel of the truck was bent forward. The damage to the steering wheel and the soreness/red mark to the left chest area of [defendant] are consistent with [his] striking the steering wheel with his left chest area as [he] moved to the right and forward at the time of the collision with the pole. At the time of the collision, the steering wheel would have been turned to the left in an unsuccessful attempt to bring the vehicle back onto the roadway (which also caused the counterclockwise rotation of the vehicle). Because the steering wheel would have been turned to the left, the bottom of the steering wheel would have rotated up to the ‘three o'clock’ position[,] where it was struck by [defendant].

Thus, evaluation of the information available, inspections of the scene and [the] Ford truck[,] and analyses of the vehicle motion and occupant motion [,] with related injury pattern, all indicate that [defendant] was the driver and Ms. Gilbert was the passenger of the Ford truck at the time of the crash."

¶ 17 Defendant argued in his motion in limine: "[I]t is clear that Mr. Shigemura's opinion that the [d]efendant was the driver is primarily based upon the injury pattern he observed in the medical records in this case. * * * And since Mr. Shigemura has NO general or specialized medical training or experience, he cannot, as a matter of law, depend on the medical records to reach his conclusion." (Emphasis in original.) Therefore, defendant requested the trial court to "enter an [o]rder limiting the State's expert witness opinion to that evidence related to accident reconstruction and not the medical records in this case."

¶ 18 In the pretrial conference of April 9, 2015, the trial court "[d]en[ied] [defendant's] mot[ion] to eliminate Shig[e]mura as a witness," to quote the order.

¶ 19 C. Evidence in the Jury Trial

¶ 20 1. The Testimony of Michael Lovel

¶ 21 Michael Lovel was a Carrollton police officer. The evening of May 2, 2013, he was on...