results of the HGN test in Illinois

2023To establish a proper foundation, the evidence must show the witness has been “properly trained and that he performed the test in accordance with proper procedures.” McKown II, 236 Ill. 2d at 306 . ¶ 64 Here, under McKown II, Shovan was not qualified to testify defendant was impaired by alcohol based solely on the HGN test, nor could he testify to the results of the HGN test when he did not personally perform it.

2013A properly trained officer who followed proper procedures may give expert testimony regarding the results of the HGN test and “may use the HGN test results as a part of the basis for his opinion that the defendant was under the influence and impaired.” Id. ¶ 38 First, defendant contends the State did not meet the foundational threshold for HGN testimony because Price testified that he received merely 40 total hours of training in all aspects of the detection of impaired drivers at the police academy and he did not indicate how much of those 40 hours was dedicated to HGN testing in particular.

2006The appellate court concluded that the results of the HGN test were properly admitted absent a Frye hearing ( 349 Ill.

2006On appeal, the appellate court held, inter alia, that the trial judge properly denied defendant’s motion to bar the results of the HGN test absent a Frye hearing. 349 Ill.

2016McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 248 .

2016McKown, 226 Ill. 2d at 248 .

2001Vega , 145 Ill.

1994App. 3d at 1000 , 496 N.E.2d at 504 .) Although the admission of testimony regarding the results of the HGN test was found to be erroneous, the error was harmless as there was sufficient other evidence, including the defendant’s failure of the "walk-the-line,” "one-leg-stand” and "finger-to-nose” tests, to support the jury’s verdict of guilt.

2004In People v. Kirk , 289 Ill.

2004In People v. Kirk, 289 Ill.

2006The motion argued that HGN tests are not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and that, as a result, the State should be required to lay a proper foundation for admission of the HGN testimony in a Frye hearing. -2- The motion cited this court’s opinion in People v. Basler, 193 Ill. 2d 545 (2000), in which the majority concluded that the question of whether HGN test results are admissible in a prosecution for driving under the influence would not be reached because the State failed to preserve the issue for review on appeal.

1997A proper foundation shall consist of evidence that the officer or administrator of the HGN test is trained in the procedure and the test was properly administered." Like the Supreme Courts of Delaware and Maine, we too should be "progress[ing] beyond the issue of admissibility" ( Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 360 ) and defining foundation requirements.

1992App. 451 , 732 P.2d 66 , the court held that the HGN test was scientific evidence based on a novel scientific principle, and in the absence of some expert evidence in the record in regard to the correlation between alcohol consumption and nystagmus, it was error to admit the results of the HGN test. ( 83 Or.

1992App. 451 , 732 P.2d 66 , the court held that the HGN test was scientific evidence based on a novel scientific principle, and in the absence of some expert evidence in the record in regard to the correlation between alcohol consumption and nystagmus, it was error to admit the results of the HGN test. ( 83 Or.

1992Evidence of a test result cannot be characterized as ‘scientific’ or qualify as ‘technical or other specialized knowledge,’ *** unless and until it is established that the test result demonstrates what it is claimed to demonstrate.” ( 224 Neb. at 58 , 395 N.W.2d at 559 .) In Commonwealth v. Miller (1987), 367 Pa. Super. 359 , 532 A.2d 1186 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also concluded that the results of the HGN test were scientific evidence based on a scientific principle, and that the party seeking to admit the results of an HGN test as evidence must establish that the scientific evidence

1992Evidence of a test result cannot be characterized as ‘scientific’ or qualify as ‘technical or other specialized knowledge,’ *** unless and until it is established that the test result demonstrates what it is claimed to demonstrate.” ( 224 Neb. at 58 , 395 N.W.2d at 559 .) In Commonwealth v. Miller (1987), 367 Pa. Super. 359 , 532 A.2d 1186 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also concluded that the results of the HGN test were scientific evidence based on a scientific principle, and that the party seeking to admit the results of an HGN test as evidence must establish that the scientific evidence

1992App. 3d 845 , 526 N.E.2d 947 , we found that the results of the HGN test were sufficient to establish probable cause that an offense had been committed, warranting arrest.

1992Evidence of a test result cannot be characterized as ‘scientific’ or qualify as ‘technical or other specialized knowledge,’ *** unless and until it is established that the test result demonstrates what it is claimed to demonstrate.” ( 224 Neb. at 58 , 395 N.W.2d at 559 .) In Commonwealth v. Miller (1987), 367 Pa. Super. 359 , 532 A.2d 1186 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also concluded that the results of the HGN test were scientific evidence based on a scientific principle, and that the party seeking to admit the results of an HGN test as evidence must establish that the scientific evidence

1992Evidence of a test result cannot be characterized as ‘scientific’ or qualify as ‘technical or other specialized knowledge,’ *** unless and until it is established that the test result demonstrates what it is claimed to demonstrate.” ( 224 Neb. at 58 , 395 N.W.2d at 559 .) In Commonwealth v. Miller (1987), 367 Pa. Super. 359 , 532 A.2d 1186 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also concluded that the results of the HGN test were scientific evidence based on a scientific principle, and that the party seeking to admit the results of an HGN test as evidence must establish that the scientific evidence