Defendant appealed his conviction of aggravated driving under the influence. Defendant argued, in part, that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an Illinois State Police Trooper’s testimony on improper lay opinion grounds under Illinois Rule of Evidence 701. Counsel was not ineffective because the Trooper’s testimony was not barred by Rule 701, and counsel cannot be considered ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection. Defendant also argued that the trooper’s testimony that he believed Defendant was driving the vehicle was unfairly prejudicial, because the testimony related to “the only issue for the jury to decide.” The trooper’s testimony was not unfairly prejudicial, because it was an obvious inference to be drawn from the evidence. If the trooper did not believe Defendant was driving, then Defendant would not have been arrested.
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Evidence