People v. Heineman

Defendant was the driver in a single-vehicle accident that resulted in the death of his passenger and was found guilty of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol. The court merged the aggravated DUI counts and sentenced defendant to six years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove his whole blood alcohol concentration was at or above 0.08 because it relied on the lay testimony of one of the officers who investigated the case to convert the results of Defendant’s blood serum alcohol concentration to its whole blood equivalent. The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction, but found the circuit court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s post-trial motion to substitute counsel. The Supreme Court, however, found that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the officer’s testimony and that this merited reversal of defendant’s conviction on the first count, but that it was harmless error regarding the second count. The Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the appellate court opinion finding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s post-trial motion to substitute counsel. (THEIS, NEVILLE, HOLDER WHITE, and CUNNINGHAM concurring. ROCHFORD and O’BRIEN took not part in the decision.)