January 5, 2001

No. 3--99--0488
(Consolidated with 3--99--0490 and 3--99--0491)

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2001

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, William Merritt, Jr., was convicted by a juryof driving on a revoked license (625 ILCS 5/6--303 (West 1996)),driving under the influence (625 ILCS 5/11--501 (West 1996)), anddriving an uninsured motor vehicle(625 ILCS 5/3--707 (West1996)). Defendant was sentenced to 30 months in prison andvarious fines. Defendant now appeals only his conviction fordriving an uninsured motor vehicle, asserting that the Statefailed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Aftercareful review, we reverse defendant's conviction for driving anuninsured vehicle and vacate the fine imposed for that conviction.

The major issue of contention between the State and thedefendant at trial was the identity of the driver of the car. However, for purposes of the instant appeal, those facts areirrelevant. What does matter is the following evidence which theState presented at trial to support the charge of driving anuninsured motor vehicle.

On April 19, 1997, a Kewanee police officer, Chuck Russell,ticketed the defendant for improper overtaking, driving on arevoked license, driving under the influence, and driving anuninsured vehicle. At trial a certified copy of the Secretary ofState's revocation of the defendant's drivers license was enteredinto evidence. The evidence also showed that the vehicle involved was not owned by either the defendant or Corina Rodriguez,who was in the car with the defendant when he was arrested. Oncethe vehicle had stopped, the officer asked for, and was granted,permission to search the vehicle. No contraband was found as aresult of this search. When asked at trial why he issued theuninsured vehicle citation, the officer stated, "There was noevidence that the vehicle was insured. There was no insurancecard presented to me at the time of this traffic stop."

When a defendant asserts, as here, that the State failed toprove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not the job ofthe reviewing court to retry the defendant. People v. Nitz, 143Ill. 2d 82, 572 N.E.2d 895 (1991). Rather, the reviewing courtmust determine if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is no way a rational trier of factcould have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonabledoubt. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 478 N.E.2d 267(1985). The trier of fact is allowed to make all reasonableinferences from the evidence. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 572 N.E.2d895.

The elements which the State must prove beyond a reasonabledoubt to sustain a conviction for driving an uninsured motorvehicle are: (1) that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle,and (2) at the time the defendant was operating the vehicle, itwas not covered by a liability insurance policy. 625 ILCS 5/3--707 (West 1996). It is also possible under the Illinois VehicleCode for a driver to be convicted of driving an uninsured motorvehicle if the driver fails to comply with a request by a lawenforcement officer for proof of insurance. 625 ILCS 5/3--707(West 1996).

There was no evidence in the record that the officer hadasked anyone to produce an insurance card. The only evidence tosupport the defendant's conviction is that the police officer wasnot shown a valid insurance card. This evidence was insufficientto prove beyond a reasonable doubt, either directly or by reasonable inference, that the defendant was driving an uninsuredvehicle.

For the foregoing reasons the conviction of the defendantfor driving an uninsured motor vehicle is reversed. The sentenceimposed for that violation, a fine of $750, is vacated. Thejudgement is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.

SLATER and LYTTON, JJ., concur.