In City of Rockford v. Elliott, 308 Ill. App. 3d 735, 721 N.E.2d 715, 242 Ill. Dec. 436 (1999), the Second District addressed the same issue defendant now raises--namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion by "permitting the State to present evidence of the civil penalties imposed upon a motorist as a result of refusing the breath test following an arrest for DUI." Elliott, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 737, 721 N.E.2d at 716. In reversing the defendant's conviction and remanding for a new trial, the Second District concluded that such evidence (1) while having some probative value, was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect to the defendant and (2) was an inappropriate expansion of section 11-501.2(c)(1) of the Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501.2(c)(1) (West 1996)), which provides only for the admission of evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a Breathalyzer test. Elliott, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 738-40, 721 N.E.2d at 718-19.