horizontal gaze nystagmus test in Illinois

2025We disagreed, stating that “[t]oolmark and firearm identification evidence is not new or novel, either pursuant to the plain meaning of those words or in accordance with the analysis employed by our supreme court in McKown.” Id. ¶ 61We continued that, “[f]ar from being unsettled, the law in Illinois is consistent in its admission of such evidence.” Id. ¶ 52 We distinguished firearm identification evidence from the horizontal gaze nystagmus test relevant in McKown, noting that the admissibly of the former was well-settled whereas the latter had never been accepted after a Frye hearing in an Ill

2025We disagreed, stating that “[t]oolmark and firearm identification evidence is not new or novel, either pursuant to the plain meaning of those words or in accordance with the analysis employed by our supreme court in McKown.” Id. ¶ 61We continued that, “[f]ar from being unsettled, the law in Illinois is consistent in its admission of such evidence.” Id. ¶ 52 We distinguished firearm identification evidence from the horizontal gaze nystagmus test relevant in McKown, noting that the admissibly of the former was well-settled whereas the latter had never been accepted after a Frye hearing in an Ill

2019Before leaving Illinois, Shepherd read the defendant his Miranda rights ( Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ) and questioned him about the contraband. ¶ 10 At the McCracken County jail, after Shepherd was advised that Warren had identified the defendant as the driver of the truck, Shepherd cited him for driving under the influence of alcohol and administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test.

2019Before leaving Illinois, Shepherd read the defendant his Miranda rights ( Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ) and questioned him about the contraband. ¶ 10 At the McCracken County jail, after Shepherd was advised that Warren had identified the defendant as the driver of the truck, Shepherd cited him for driving under the influence of alcohol and administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test.

2007When reviewing a conviction to determine whether the prosecution has satisfied the reasonable doubt standard, the court must determine “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 omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 61 L.

2007When reviewing a conviction to determine whether the prosecution has satisfied the reasonable doubt standard, the court must determine “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 omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 61 L.

2007The defense countered this testimony with technical writings that criticized the HGN test and concluded that “the reliability of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is not a settled proposition within the scientific community.” Apollo, 412 Pa. Super, at 461, 603 A.2d at 1027 .

2007The defense countered this testimony with technical writings that criticized the HGN test and concluded that “the reliability of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is not a settled proposition within the scientific community.” Apollo, 412 Pa. Super, at 461, 603 A.2d at 1027 .

2023“We do not have to necessarily agree that it was the best or most persuasive trial strategy as long as we can find it to be ‘reasonable trial strategy.’ ” People v. Logan, 2022 IL App (4th) 210492 , ¶ 141, 203 N.E.3d 418 . “ ‘A defendant is entitled to competent, not perfect, representation, and mistakes in trial strategy or judgment will not, of themselves, render the representation ineffective.’ ” People v. Bell, 2021 IL App (1st) 190366, ¶ 63 , 189 N.E.3d 531 (quoting People v. Tucker, 2017 IL App (5th) 130576, ¶ 26 , 79 N.E.3d 782 ). “ ‘A weak or insufficient defense does not indicate inef

2023“We do not have to necessarily agree that it was the best or most persuasive trial strategy as long as we can find it to be ‘reasonable trial strategy.’ ” People v. Logan, 2022 IL App (4th) 210492 , ¶ 141, 203 N.E.3d 418 . “ ‘A defendant is entitled to competent, not perfect, representation, and mistakes in trial strategy or judgment will not, of themselves, render the representation ineffective.’ ” People v. Bell, 2021 IL App (1st) 190366, ¶ 63 , 189 N.E.3d 531 (quoting People v. Tucker, 2017 IL App (5th) 130576, ¶ 26 , 79 N.E.3d 782 ). “ ‘A weak or insufficient defense does not indicate inef

2023“We do not have to necessarily agree that it was the best or most persuasive trial strategy as long as we can find it to be ‘reasonable trial strategy.’ ” People v. Logan, 2022 IL App (4th) 210492 , ¶ 141, 203 N.E.3d 418 . “ ‘A defendant is entitled to competent, not perfect, representation, and mistakes in trial strategy or judgment will not, of themselves, render the representation ineffective.’ ” People v. Bell, 2021 IL App (1st) 190366, ¶ 63 , 189 N.E.3d 531 (quoting People v. Tucker, 2017 IL App (5th) 130576, ¶ 26 , 79 N.E.3d 782 ). “ ‘A weak or insufficient defense does not indicate inef

2007The defense countered this testimony with technical writings that criticized the HGN test and concluded that “the reliability of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is not a settled proposition within the scientific community.” Apollo, 412 Pa. Super. at 461 , 603 4 The issue came before us once again in People v. Robinson, 223 Ill. 2d 165 (2006), but we declined to resolve the HGN issue, holding that the question was waived because it “was not raised in [the defendant’s] posttrial motion, his appeal before the appellate court, or his petition for leave to appeal to this court.” Robinson, 223 Il

2007The defense countered this testimony with technical writings that criticized the HGN test and concluded that “the reliability of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is not a settled proposition within the scientific community.” Apollo, 412 Pa. Super. at 461 , 603 4 The issue came before us once again in People v. Robinson, 223 Ill. 2d 165 (2006), but we declined to resolve the HGN issue, holding that the question was waived because it “was not raised in [the defendant’s] posttrial motion, his appeal before the appellate court, or his petition for leave to appeal to this court.” Robinson, 223 Il

1992Ct. App. 1990), 561 So. 2d 883, 885 .) The horizontal gaze nystagmus test as routinely performed by law enforcement officers consists of: “the driver [being] asked to cover one eye and focus the other on an object (usually a pen) held by the officer at the driver’s eye level.

1988(People v. Gerke (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 85 .) Further, the horizontal gaze nystagmus test has been considered as a factor in justifying an arrest for driving under the influence.

1988(See People v. Griffith (1986), 143 Ill.

1988App. 3d 44, 46 , 507 N.E.2d 230 .) Thus, a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which does not analyze any bodily substance, would not be admissible to prove blood-alcohol concentration in any prosecution for any of the offenses defined in section 11 — 501, including, as charged here, driving while under the influence of alcohol as prescribed in section 11 — 501(aX2).

1988Furness relies on People v. Vega (1986), 145 Ill.

1988App. 3d 996 , 496 N.E.2d 501 , for the proposition that the horizontal gaze nystagmus test cannot be used for probable cause for arrest.