Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » *** UPDATED x1 *** Good news and bad news
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
*** UPDATED x1 *** Good news and bad news

Tuesday, Nov 25, 2014

* A guy is involved in a motorcycle accident, his passenger dies, he consents to a drug test and it turns up negative except for this

The only positive test result was for benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, which was found in both defendant’s blood and urine. A metabolite is a byproduct remaining in the body after metabolism has taken place.

In other words, he wasn’t high at the time.

* During his trial, jurors ask the judge for instructions. Is benzoylecgonine the same as a drug? If it is the same, then the guy is gonna get convicted. If it isn’t, then he has a chance at acquittal. The state’s attorney did not object to the defense counsel’s request that the judge state the obvious. The judge’s response

“It’s not really a factual question or one about review of the evidence,” Kennedy said, according to a transcript in the appellate ruling. “It’s really a matter asking the court to give a legal definition and so the court should answer that as closely as possible by giving a direct answer and then explaining without alluding to facts in the answer, so the answer the court is going to give is, yes, cocaine metabolite qualifies as a drug, substance or intoxicating compound. … I believe that responds to their question and correctly states the law to them, so that’s the response that’s going to be given. I’m going to write that out carefully.”

As a result, Dana Hasselbring was convicted of DUI, even though there was clearly no “influence” involved with his driving.

* The appellate court reversed yesterday

“Both the state and defendant agreed the trial court should answer the question by telling the jury to rely on the evidence it heard during the trial. The trial court’s unprompted response, ‘yes, cocaine metabolite qualifies as a drug, substance, or intoxicating compound,’ was incorrect, in conflict with the evidence presented, and served to direct a verdict in the state’s favor,” the ruling said.

“The better approach would have been for the trial court to accept the parties’ recommended response and instruct the jury to rely on the evidence it heard during the trial. Accordingly, we have no choice but to reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.”

* But this is also from the opinion

The State’s expert testified, “Benzoylecgonine is a cocaine metabolite. That means that at some point cocaine was ingested. It breaks down into metabolites. One of them is Benzoylecgonine, which we test for. It is similar to digestion. When you ingest food, it has to break down into other substances. Drugs are the same way.” (Emphasis added).

Looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, we find a rational jury could have found the benzoylecgonine in defendant’s system was a substance resulting from defendant’s use of cocaine before driving… Accordingly, double jeopardy does not preclude retrial of defendant.

So, he could very well go on trial again and lose again.

This goofy state law really needs to be changed.

*** UPDATE *** From an Illinois State Bar Association letter to the editor of the Pekin Times…

Under the current Illinois Vehicle Code, a driver who is not impaired is still guilty of a DUI offense or aggravated DUI offense if there is any trace of an unlawful drug in their blood or urine. So, if a driver smoked marijuana two weeks before an accident, it is still a crime even though a urinalysis can’t test for active THC metabolites, and the driver showed no evidence of impairment. In other words, smoking marijuana two weeks earlier had nothing to do with the accident.

This isn’t good policy. As the Pekin Daily Times recently stated, “The purpose of the DUI laws should be to punish people who drive under the influence of alcohol or or drugs. We don’t see any justice in punishing people who aren’t under the influence.”

We agree.

Accordingly, ISBA Legislative Proposal 98-16 removes this absolute liability offense from the DUI statute and makes it a new separate Class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class A misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense.

The proposal continues to make it illegal to use drugs to the extent that they result impairment under the current DUI statute. A conviction under this new statute would also parallel the DUI statute to require payment of the $150 DUI Analysis Fee and require a professional evaluation of the driver for substance abuse before sentencing.

The punishment must fit the crime. We join with the Pekin Daily Times and request you “fix the law so that those who are driving under the influence are punished but those who are clearly not impaired are not.”

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - William j Kelly - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 12:35 pm:

    I am sorry but what’s the good news again?

  2. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 12:37 pm:

    “Looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must…..”

    Huh? I thought it was the other way around.

    In dubio pro reo?

  3. - Gooner - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 12:44 pm:


    On appeal, the Court defers to the finder of fact.

  4. - JoanP - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 12:48 pm:

    @ Wordslinger -

    You have to look at the context. Here, the appellate court is considering whether any rational trier of fact could have found the evidence sufficient to support a conviction. That’s the standard in determining whether double jeopardy bars the retrial. It’s NOT the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that a jury must use at trial.

  5. - AC - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 12:57 pm:

    I’m encouraged to hear that there seems to be a renewed interest in punishments fitting crimes. It’s too bad we’ve had to lock up such a large portion of the population, or leave them impoverished, for crimes they didn’t commit. I can’t be convinced that someone drove under the influence of a drug if they didn’t have the actual drug in their system, not a byproduct, or some indicator that they had taken the drug in the past.

  6. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:01 pm:

    I don’t agree with your viewpoint at all.

    Their is no reason to have either cocaine or its metabolites in your bloodstream.

    Debating how it may or may have not effected the wreck isn’t how to fairly address this issue.

    It should be considered and justice shouldn’t ignore the defendant’s physical condition.

    The law is not the problem.

  7. - Knome Sane - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:01 pm:

    “Drivin’ that train, high on Benzoylecgonine” doesn’t have the same ring to it.

  8. - DPGumby - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:03 pm:

    this is significant in that evidence of marijuana remains in the system for extensive periods long after the high is gone. that fact is a conundrum for states with recreational use.

  9. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:17 pm:

    Debating how it may or may have not effected the wreck isn’t how to fairly address this issue.

  10. - ChicagoR - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:19 pm:

    “Debating how it may or may have not effected the wreck isn’t how to fairly address this issue.”

    When you are trying someone for driving “under the influence”, it seems to be that debating whether the person was “under the influence” is exactly how to fairly address the issue.

  11. - Nick Name - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:23 pm:

    -* A guy is involved in a motorcycle accident, his passenger dies-

    Not that it affects your narrative, but the person who died was not a passenger on the defendent’s motorcycle. He was on another motorcycle. Both motorcyclists were going 55+ mph in a 35 mph zone (residential area) when they collided. Maybe reckless driving would have been a more appropriate charge.

  12. - Judgment Day (on the road) - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:23 pm:

    Actually, VM, that’s not quite correct. This, from Wikipedia:

    “Benzoylecgonine is used as the main pharmaceutical ingredient in the prescription drug Esterom, a topical solution used for the relief of muscle pain.”

    Link is:

    This is just a small part of a much bigger issue. There has been a little noticed revolution in quick response testing of body fluids. It used to be that it literally took days to get any types of results.

    Doesn’t always take that any more - at least to get preliminary findings. And they are testing for more and more things. And it’s starting to effect employment, getting hired, etc.

    If they are going to change these statutes (and IMO, they should), it shouldn’t just be for ‘impairment’ - it may very well go into other areas such as eligibility for military service, etc.

    Imagine if somebody got a copy of a pol’s physical with all this type of testing data. Talk about opposition research going to a new extreme.

    This is a difficult issue.

  13. - Weltschmerz - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:46 pm:

    Obviously, the good news is that once your body metabolizes something, it no longer has any effect on said body. Pass the doughnuts.

  14. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 1:50 pm:


  15. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 5:20 pm:

    More like this, please.

  16. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Nov 25, 14 @ 7:41 pm:

    So who has said that this person is not under the influence? Where in the chain of metabolism does this substance occur? It this a gotcha of an indication of continuing impairment?

  17. - vole - Wednesday, Nov 26, 14 @ 6:14 am:

    Having considerable horsepower harnessed between a persons legs could be considered a source of impaired judgment in the minds of some individuals. Add the influence of other individuals similarly affected, cultural influences, helmet laws, etc. and you have a whole messed up set of impairments.
    The judicious would first consider this: if you are breaking one law, don’t break two. But if you break one law two weeks earlier, you best be damned careful and on guard to avoid messy lawmaking and enforcement.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to this morning's edition
* Question of the day
* First Class all the way
* Manteno Veterans' Home tests show "low levels of Legionellosis"
* Pritzker signs EO committing Illinois to Paris Climate Agreement
* The Dome is leaking
* It's Time To Put Our Progressive Values Into Action
* More on Pritzker's HB40 EO
* Yeah, that'll work well
* Report: Ald. Solis recorded conversations with Ald. Burke
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...








Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller