Matthew R. Leisten, Ogle County State’s Attorney’s Office, Oregon
815-732-1170 | E-mail Matthew R. Leisten
Fourth District Reverses DUI Conviction Due to Improperly Conducted Stipulated Bench Trial
In People v. Gonzalez, 2025 IL App (4th) 240384, the Fourth District Appellate Court reversed the defendant’s DUI conviction that was imposed after a stipulated bench trial because it was improperly conducted as a trial.
In Gonzalez, the defendant was initially cited for failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident and failure to report an accident. The defendant consented to chemical testing during the investigation, and she pleaded guilty to the charges a month after the accident. The investigating deputy then received an Illinois State Police (ISP) crime laboratory report after the defendant had pleaded guilty that showed her blood alcohol content was over 0.08. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶¶5 – 6.
The defense filed a motion to dismiss for double jeopardy, and the deputy testified about the investigation, including receiving the ISP lab report and charging the defendant with DUI. The trial court denied the motion, and the parties proceeded to a stipulated bench trial before another judge on a subsequent court date. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶¶6 – 7.
The stipulated bench trial consisted only of the new trial judge taking judicial notice of the motion to dismiss the transcript. No exhibits were admitted, and no arguments were made by the parties. The defendant was found guilty of DUI. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶10.
The appellate court reversed and criticized how the stipulated bench trial was conducted. The appellate court noted that the only “evidence” at the trial was the transcript of the deputy’s testimony. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶20. The appellate court concluded that the deputy’s testimony from the hearing did not establish that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle that was in the accident. The deputy had testified that he had “reason to believe” that she was the driver based on statements made by her passengers. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶6. However, the appellate court stated that those statements were hearsay and thus could not be used as evidence against her. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶¶17, 22 – 25.
The appellate court also rejected the state’s argument that the defendant’s guilty pleas to the traffic citations were judicial admissions that she was driving because those convictions were never admitted as evidence. Although the convictions were referenced in the hearing and stipulated trial, they were never admitted as evidence in either proceeding. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶20.
The appellate court also held that the state failed to show that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The deputy had testified that the defendant did not show signs of intoxication at the scene and he requested that she consent to testing only because the other occupants were injured. The state also never admitted the ISP lab report into evidence during the hearing, nor were the results stated on the record. The deputy’s testimony showed only that he issued the DUI citations after he received the report. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶¶29 – 30.
The appellate court emphasized that parties should always treat a stipulated bench trial as a trial even though it is an abbreviated one. The appellate court criticized the trial court for not reviewing the transcript that was the basis for the stipulation. Since the defendant did not stipulate sufficiency of the evidence and the evidence that was stipulated to was insufficient to establish that she was DUI, her conviction was reversed. 2025 IL App (4th) 240384 at ¶¶34, 36.
For more information about criminal law, see CRIMINAL RECORDS: EXPUNGEMENT AND OTHER RELIEF (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.