People v. Lanigan

Defendant was found guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to two years of probation. On appeal, defendant argued that the State relied on body-worn camera footage that was allegedly not admitted into evidence and that the evidence was insufficient where the State’s only witness was the arresting officer. The appellate court found no error and affirmed explaining that the body-worn camera footage was properly admitted into evidence and that the evidence was “more than” sufficient evidence of the charged offense. (MIKVA and WILSON, concurring)