People v. Llereza , 2023 IL App (3d) 210549-U ( 2023 )

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2023 IL App (3d) 210549-UOrder filed June 6, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
) Will County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-21-0549
v. ) Circuit No. 19-DT-817
)
ELIJAH M. LLEREZA, ) Honorable
) Bennett J. Braun,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Hettel and Peterson concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s admissions to driving while under the influence were sufficiently
corroborated at trial, and the totality of the evidence was sufficient to sustain
defendant’s conviction.
¶2 Defendant, Elijah M. Llereza, appeals his conviction for driving while under the influence
of alcohol (DUI), arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was driving or in actual
physical control of the vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was charged with misdemeanor DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2018)),
stemming from an apparent vehicle crash. The State alleged that on August 17, 2019, defendant
drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On April
5, 2021, the case proceeded to a bench trial.
¶5 Officer Christopher Witt of the Bolingbrook Police Department testified that shortly after
midnight on August 17, 2019, he was dispatched to a damaged vehicle parked on the side of the
road. En route to the scene, Witt saw vehicle debris in the road leading to the scene, which he later
collected. Upon arrival, Witt observed a heavily damaged gray Nissan. The vehicle debris Witt
collected matched the Nissan. There was heavy damage to the front and rear of the Nissan. Both
right side tires were flat, and the right front tire was on its rim. No one was present when Witt
arrived. Approximately 20 minutes later, defendant appeared on scene on foot.
¶6 Witt spoke with defendant who admitted the vehicle was his and he had been driving.
Defendant said he had been driving from a friend’s home and struck a light pole. Defendant could
not remember where the light pole was located. Defendant also said he had been at a party hosted
by his friend, where he consumed half a bottle of vodka. Defendant told Witt he left the party
because he felt he was “too intoxicated and he wanted to get home as quickly as possible.” When
Witt asked defendant whether he was too intoxicated to drive, defendant replied, “[I] hit a pole,
what do you think?” Defendant told Witt “that he parked his car and left because he was scared.”
¶7 While speaking with defendant, Witt observed defendant “had a strong odor of an alcoholic
beverage emitting from his breath ***, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his speech was
thick tongued.” Witt asked defendant to perform three standardized field sobriety tests. Defendant
agreed and performed the tests. Defense counsel repeatedly objected to the testimony relating to
the field sobriety tests, arguing an appropriate foundation had not been laid for the evidence. At
2
this point, Witt determined defendant was under the influence of alcohol and could not safely
operate a vehicle. He then arrested defendant.
¶8 On cross-examination, Witt admitted he had not observed the damaged Nissan in motion,
nor had he effectuated a traffic stop of the vehicle as it was parked without passengers upon his
arrival. Witt agreed that he observed damage to the front and rear of the vehicle. Witt did not
personally observe how the damage to the Nissan occurred. Witt agreed that while defendant
admitted to being at a friend’s party and drinking vodka, he did not say what time he arrived at the
party or what time he left the party, only that he had been there for a couple of hours earlier in the
evening. Defendant did not provide a time at which he ceased drinking alcohol.
¶9 During Witt’s testimony, the State attempted to elicit evidence regarding Witt’s
investigation into the registered owner of the vehicle. Before Witt could answer the State’s
questions, the court sustained an objection from defendant, declining to admit the evidence on
hearsay grounds.
¶ 10 The State rested and defendant moved for a directed finding. The court denied the motion.
During closing arguments, the court expressed concern about the evidence presented, stating,
“There wasn’t a witness to the collision. The only witness to the collision
was at best was the defendant.
***
*** I don’t have any idea when that accident took place. I know that—I
suppose there is evidence that I could draw the conclusion *** that the defendant
was impaired at the time he came back to the vehicle. I don’t know who owns this
vehicle.”
3
¶ 11 Following arguments, the court made preliminary findings and took the case under
advisement. The court stated it found Witt’s testimony to be credible but was not going to consider
the conclusions he made from the field sobriety tests because it did not “believe the officer was
asked sufficient questions for [it] to find that the tests were conducted consistent with the—with
the NHTSA requirements.” The court asked the parties to each submit a memorandum of law
regarding whether “Witt’s testimony, the statements of the defendant, [and] *** Witt’s
observations” were “sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
¶ 12 After receiving the memoranda, the court found defendant guilty. In its recitation of the
trial evidence, the court noted,
“The defendant said that he had consumed a half a bottle of vodka *** at a
party in Romeoville earlier over a period of about two hours. That he had not
consumed any alcoholic beverages since then.
He produced a license, which, essentially, that, along with the officer’s
check of the registration, confirmed that the vehicle was owned by the defendant.”
The court found defendant’s statements were confirmed “by the registration, his appearance, odor,
speech, difficulty maintaining balance while walking.” Additionally, it found the evidence
corroborated by the fact defendant did not deny driving the vehicle or state that someone else drove
the vehicle, especially “in light of the fact that the registration came back to the defendant
confirming his ownership in the vehicle.” Based on that, the court found that “the corpus delicti
of the crime of [DUI] is demonstrated independent from the defendant’s admissions.”
¶ 13 Defendant moved to reconsider, asserting the State offered no evidence at trial of (1) the
ownership of the Nissan, (2) when defendant had consumed alcohol, (3) when defendant had left
the party, and (4) whether defendant had consumed alcohol after the party but prior to encountering
4
Witt. The court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to 18 months’ court supervision. This
appeal followed.
¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 15 Defendant contends the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Specifically, defendant argues the only evidence presented at trial, defendant’s extrajudicial
admissions to Witt, was insufficient to sustain a conviction because no independent corroborating
evidence was presented.
¶ 16 When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). In making this
determination, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. People v. Hardman,
2017 IL 121453, ¶ 37. All reasonable inferences from the record must be drawn in favor of the
prosecution. Id. “A criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable
or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at
261.
¶ 17 “Under the law of Illinois, proof of an offense requires proof of two distinct propositions
or facts beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a crime occurred, that is, the corpus delicti; and (2) the
crime was committed by the person charged.” People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 183 (2010). A
defendant’s confessions, admissions, or extrajudicial statements alone are insufficient to establish
corpus delicti. People v. Lara, 2012 IL 112370, ¶ 17. “[T]he corpus delicti rule requires only that
the corroborating evidence correspond with the circumstances recited in the confession and tend
to connect the defendant with the crime.” Id. ¶ 51. The independent corroborative evidence
required is significantly less than the evidence needed to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a
5
reasonable doubt. Id. ¶ 45. This evidence need not corroborate every element of the charged
offense. Id. ¶ 50. “If such evidence tends to prove that the offense occurred and corroborates a
defendant’s confession, it may be considered, together with the confession, to establish the corpus
delicti of the offense.” People v. Call, 176 Ill. App. 3d 571, 575 (1988).
¶ 18 Here, defendant was charged with DUI. As charged, the offense required the State to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant drove or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle
at a time when he was under the influence of alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2018). The
primary evidence presented by the State to prove both elements was established through
defendant’s admissions to Witt. Thus, we must consider if the independent evidence the State
presented corroborates defendant’s admissions. Lara, 2012 IL 112370, ¶ 17.
¶ 19 The evidence adduced at trial, independent of defendant’s admissions, showed that Witt
responded to a call regarding a damaged vehicle parked on the side of the road. Pieces of that
vehicle littered the road en route to the scene. The vehicle was parked and empty upon Witt’s
arrival. The vehicle sustained heavy damage to the front, rear, and right-side tires. Defendant
arrived on scene and began interacting with Witt approximately 20 minutes after Witt’s arrival.
Defendant exhibited physical signs of intoxication when he interacted with Witt in the early hours
of August 17, 2019.
¶ 20 In this case, the independent evidence presented at trial corresponds with defendant’s
admissions where defendant demonstrated knowledge of the damaged vehicle’s location, returned
to the area on foot and alone, and exhibited physical signs of intoxication. This evidence, coupled
with defendant’s admissions to owning the vehicle, driving, striking a light pole, parking the
vehicle, and leaving the area in fear are sufficient to prove defendant drove the motor vehicle.
6
¶ 21 In coming to this conclusion, we reject defendant’s reliance on cases where corroborating
evidence was found insufficient when the record contained no evidence of possession of car keys,
ownership of the vehicle, or finding defendant in the driver’s seat. See People v. Foster, 138 Ill.
App. 3d 44, 47 (1985); Village of Round Lake v. Delatorre, 2021 IL App (2d) 190066-U, ¶ 11.
The fact that “certain evidence is sufficiently corroborative in one fact-specific case, *** does not
mean that the absence of such evidence in another case is fatal.” People v. Underwood, 2019 IL
App (3d) 170623, ¶ 20.
¶ 22 Moreover, we reject defendant’s argument that, even if he was driving, the evidence is
insufficient to prove he was under the influence of alcohol while he was driving that evening.
Defendant admitted that, while at a party, he consumed half a bottle of vodka over the course of a
couple of hours earlier in the evening. He left the party because he was too intoxicated and wanted
to get home quickly. Defendant struck a light pole. When Witt asked defendant if he had been too
intoxicated to drive, defendant quipped, “[I] hit a pole, what do you think?” And critically, Witt
observed the odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath, his bloodshot and glassy eyes, and his thick-
tongued speech. Even in the absence of a specific time, this evidence supports a reasonable
inference that defendant was intoxicated while operating his vehicle earlier that evening.
Defendant asserts that we may not rely on these statements because they are not corroborated by
independent evidence. However, we reiterate that the independent evidence need not corroborate
every element of the offense; it need only tend to prove the offense occurred. Lara, 2012 IL
112370, ¶ 50.
¶ 23 We find the State’s evidence satisfied the corpus delicti rule. Considering only the
competent evidence before the court in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude the
evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for DUI.
7
¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 25 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Will County.
¶ 26 Affirmed.
8