People v. Ackerman
| Decision Date | 04 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--187,70--187 |
| Citation | 274 N.E.2d 125,2 Ill.App.3d 903 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Michael ACKERMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald M. Werksman, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Henry D. Sintzenich, State's Atty., Macomb, for plaintiff-appellee.
This is an appeal by Jeffrey Ackerman, Defendant, from his conviction and sentence for the offense of possession of 140 tablets more or less of LSD in violation of Chap. 111 1/2, Sec. 802(c) and 807(c), Ill.Rev.Stat.1969. Defendant was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail by the Circuit Court of McDonough County.
The facts which are the basis of this prosecution are substantially undisputed. On the morming of April 9, 1970, the post-master of the Macomb, Illinois post office noticed that a package wrapped as a book rattled when shaken. He called the sheriff and in the presence of the sheriff and a deputy sheriff the package was opened. Inside the package was a book with its pages glued together and inside the pages was a cut out section containing about 140 pills identified by a test conducted on the spot as LSD. The package was rewarapped for delivery in due course. The package was addressed to Gary Lang, % Jeffrey Ackerman, 916 Henninger, Macomb, Illinois. Neither the name nor the address of the sender appeared on the package. Henninger Hall is a dormitory of Western Illinois University at Macomb and the defendant, a Western Illinois student, resides at Room 916 in such Hall. No student named Gary Lang is registered at Western Illinois University.
After ascertaining that the package would be delivered at about noon, the sheriff, deputy sheriff, postal inspector and agent of the Illinois Bureau of Investigation set up a surveillance of the first floor of Henninger Hall. At about 2 P.M. the defendant came into Henninger Hall, went to his mail box and withdrew therefrom a notice that there was a package for him. He went to the counter where packages were ordinarily delivered, presented his notice, received the package, signed a receipt therefore, put the package under his arm and headed for the elevator. While so proceeding he was stopped and arrested. The package, previously opened and examined in the post office, was taken from him.
Defendant testified that he returned to Henninger Hall to get a notebook for his next class and that he had received the package as described and that he had the package under his arm when arrested. However he denied that he knew what was in the package, that he had ordered any such package, that he knew where the package had come from and that he did not know any Gary Lang.
On appeal defendant argues as one of several points, that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in his favor because there is an absence of evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred that he had 'knowing' possession of a dangerous drug.
It is well settled that knowledge is an essential element in the chain of proof of the crime of possession of narcotics. People v. Mills, 40 Ill.2d 4, 237 N.E.2d 697 and People v. Truelock, 35 Ill.2d 189, 220 N.E.2d 187. Section 4--2, Chap. 38, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, defines voluntary possession in the following language, 'Possession is a voluntary act if the offender knowingly procured or received the thing possessed, or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient time to have been able to terminate his possession.'. Possession as so described is an essential element of the offense of possession of a narcotic or dangerous drug. People v. Mills, supra.
As observed in People v. Galloway, 28 Ill.2d 355, 192 N.E.2d 370, '* * * the element of knowledge is seldom susceptible of direct proof, * * *' the Court further indicating that in a narcotic case knowledge sufficient to convict a person '* * * (may be proved) by evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. State
...Parent, 8 Conn.App. 469, 513 A.2d 725, 728 (1986); State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 700, 889 P.2d 729, 736 (App.1994); People v. Ackerman, 2 Ill. App.3d 903, 274 N.E.2d 125, 127 (1971); Commonwealth v. Sheline, 391 Mass. 279, 461 N.E.2d 1197, 1202 (1984); Commonwealth v. Aguiar, 370 Mass. 490, 350......
-
People v. Bui
...in this case to those in People v. Hodogbey, 306 Ill.App.3d 555, 239 Ill.Dec. 775, 714 N.E.2d 1072 (1999), and People v. Ackerman, 2 Ill.App.3d 903, 274 N.E.2d 125 (1971). In Hodogbey, the court stated the evidence proved only that after the accused accepted delivery of a package addressed ......
-
Com. v. Sheline
...So.2d 111, 112-113 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974); Rutskin v. State, 260 So.2d 525, 525-527 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972); People v. Ackerman, 2 Ill.App.3d 903, 905-906, 274 N.E.2d 125 (1971); State v. Richards, 155 N.J.Super. 106, 109-119, 382 A.2d 407 (1978); People v. Patello, 41 A.D.2d 954, 954-955, 3......
-
Com. v. Aguiar
...defendant possessed the drugs knowingly. See, e.g., Schaufele v. State,269 So.2d 400, 401 (Ct.App.Fla.1972); People v. Ackerman, 2 Ill.App.3d 903, 905--906, 274 N.E.2d 125 (1971) (package addressed to another unknown person c/o the defendant); People v. Patello, 41 App.Div.2d 954, 344 N.Y.S......
-
§ 9.03 Voluntary Act: Supposed (But Not Real) Exceptions to the Requirement
...See generally § 5.03, supra.[70] Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).[71] See § 9.04, infra.[72] See, e.g., People v. Ackerman, 274 N.E.2d 125, 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971); State v. Flaherty, 400 A.2d 363, 366 (Me. 1979); Ramirez-Memije v. State, 444 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 20......
-
§ 9.03 VOLUNTARY ACT: SUPPOSED (BUT NOT REAL) EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT
...generally § 5.03, supra.[69] . Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).[70] . See § 9.04, infra.[71] . See, e.g., People v. Ackerman, 274 N.E.2d 125, 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971); State v. Flaherty, 400 A.2d 363, 366 (Me. 1979); Ramirez-Memije v. State, 444 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Tex. Crim. App. ......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...Abbott, State v., 174 A.2d 881 (N.J. 1961), 216, 217, 218 Abedi, People v., 595 N.Y.S.2d. 1011 (Sup. Ct. 1993), 410 Ackerman, People v., 274 N.E.2d 125 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971), 94 Acosta, People v., 609 N.E.2d 518 (N.Y. 1993), 374 Adams, People v., 291 N.E.2d 54 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972), 236 Adams......