People v. Beck, 2017 IL App (4th) 160654 (November). Episode 424 (Duration 11:51)

Defendant crosses the centerline and collides head on with another car resulting in serious brain damage to the other driver, this 54 page opinion results.

Bad Accident

This was a head on collision that resulted in brain damage with long-term and lasting effects to the other driver. Defendant was found guilty of Aggravated DUI after a stipulated bench trial and put on 30 months probation with 180 days in jail but stayed.

Defendant’s car crossed into oncoming traffic.

A firefighter made first contact with defendant at the accident scene. Defendant reported to the firefighter that he “had maybe five beers” and Gubbins relayed that information to Carle’s emergency room. Defendant reported he had been drinking for the homecoming festivities at Eastern Illinois University since 10 a.m. on the day of the accident.

A photograph of the interior of defendant’s vehicle showed a single Bud Light beer can on the floorboard.

Taken To Hospital 

Defendant is taken to the hospital at 9:43 pm.

Hospital personnel informed the Sheriff’s office that defendant had a blood alcohol result of 0.211.

Deputy Clough stated he first saw defendant in a bed in his hospital room. Defendant’s parents were present and Clough believed a nurse was also in and out of the room. ” Clough next asked defendant if he was willing to submit to testing of his blood and urine. Defendant consented to the testing, and Clough asked a nurse to “do a DUI kit.”

Defendant is ticketed with DUI at 1:45 pm.

Conversation With Police

Because the emergency room was busy, blood was not collected from defendant until approximately 3:25 or 3:26 a.m. (7 hours after the crash) While waiting on the nurse to obtain specimens from defendant, Clough and defendant had a further discussion about defendant’s consumption of alcohol.

During that conversation, defendant reported that he had been drinking at a party prior to the accident.

Defendant admitted that he drank eight to nine beers at a party before the accident and crossed the centerline of the highway and struck Camp’s vehicle.

The officer did read the warning to motorist but did not give defendant the Miranda warnings.

Interesting 911 Recording

Recordings indicated the 9-1-1 center was contacted by law enforcement and asked to contact Carle’s emergency department with a request to draw defendant’s blood.

A dispatcher with the 9-1-1 center then contacted Carle and relayed the request to its emergency department, stating as follows:

“The deputies on scene are requesting that the male subject who’s being transported, you guys get a blood draw from him.”

An unidentified individual from Carle’s emergency department then responded,

“Yeah, we usually always do.”

But a nurse testified she was not ordered by any law enforcement agency to perform the blood draw. Rather, she did so at the direction of the emergency room doctor. At the time she drew defendant’s blood, there were not any police officers in defendant’s room, and she had not spoken to any police officers about defendant’s case. To her knowledge police were not requesting a blood draw.

She acknowledged that defendant’s medical records reflected that she drew defendant’s blood at 10:29 p.m.

Retrograde Extrapolation

The state presented a forensic toxicologist who described retrograde extrapolation as “a mathematical process” and “a method of estimating an individual’s BAC at an earlier point in time when it’s known at a later point in time.”

He testified retrograde extrapolation was an accepted method within the field of toxicology for determining an individual’s BAC and “was first described ...