People v. Aldridge

Decision Date31 March 1960
Docket NumberNo. 35304,35304
Citation19 Ill.2d 176,166 N.E.2d 563
PartiesPEOPLE of State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Robert J. Becker, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Grenville Beardsley, Atty. Gen., and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Francis X. Riley, and James R. Thompson, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for the people.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

On the afternoon of March 19, 1958, John Aldridge and Manning Coleman met with two other men in a drug store at Grand Avenue and Clark Street in Chicago. The other men were George Payne, a Federal narcotics agent, and Gene Anderson, an informer, also known as 'Bozzo.' Payne paid $45 in marked money for which he received a small package that contained heroin. Aldridge and Coleman were arrested and searched shorty after Payne received the package, and the marked money was found on Coleman. They were tried together before a judge of the criminal court of Cook County and both were found guilty of the unlawful sale of narcotics. Aldridge was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 10 nor more than 15 years, and, by counsel appointed by this court, he prosecutes this writ of error.

He contends first that the evidence did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he sold narcotics. Payne and the two defendants testified to what occurred in the drug store on March 19, and each of the defendants testified to earlier events. Aldridge testified that he had known Bozzo for about one year, and Coleman for about two years. On March 12, he had arranged to meet Bozzo at the drug store, and had taken Coleman with him to the meeting. There Bozzo introduced him and Coleman to Payne, who was described as 'George, a fellow out of Texas.' On March 19 Aldridge again arranged a meeting at the drug store with Bozzo, and again brought Coleman with him. Aldridge and Coleman arrived first, and Bozzo and Payne joined them at the counter.

The witnesses differ as to the details of the events that followed. Payne testified that Aldridge asked him if he was ready to do business, that he answered 'Yes' and Aldridge said 'O.K.' Payne then gave Aldridge the $45 in marked money, which Aldridge handed to Coleman. Coleman then left the drug store. When he returned about 40 minutes later he handed a small metal foil package containing heroin to Aldridge, and Aldridge handed it to Payne.

Aldridge testified that Bozzo asked him if he knew where to get some narcotics and he said he did not; that Bozzo then put the same question to Coleman, who said he might be able to 'run out west' and get some; that Payne then handed the money to Bozzo, who handed it to Aldridge, and that he handed it down the counter to Coleman, who left; that on Colemans' return he gave the package to Bozzo who gave it to Payne.

Coleman testified that before they went to the drug store on March 19, Aldridge told him that he had a friend at Grand and Clark that 'he wanted to see about a little business;' that Payne and Bozzo asked Aldridge for some dope, and then 'they told me they wanted to get some dope;' that he went to a tavern called the 'Set Up' where he met a man whom Aldridge had described to him, who gave him the package of narcotics which he brought back to the drug store. He testified that Aldridge had 'informed' him to go to the 'Set Up.'

It is true that there is no direct testimony that Aldridge ever owned or had possession of the heroin, or that he acted as principal in the transaction. Also, the record shows that at the time of his arrest Aldridge had not received any of the money which had been paid for the drug. However, the scope of the offense here involved is not restricted by the principles of law that relate to normal sales. Section 2-11 of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act defines 'sale' to include 'barter, exchange, or gift, or offer therefor, and each such transaction made by any person whether as principal, proprietor, broker, agent, servant or employee.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 38, par. 192.28-2.11. Under the broad reach of this definition it is not necessary to trace title to the drug with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • People v. Marquis
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 23, 1974
    ...Calcaterra, 33 Ill.2d 541, 213 N.E.2d 270 (1966)), nor is it required that he be in possession of the marked money (People v. Aldridge, 19 Ill.2d 176, 166 N.E.2d 563 (1960)). In Aldridge the court 'The fact that Coleman (the co-defendant) still had the marked money when they were arrested d......
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1972
    ...was admissible on the issue of intent. Sutton v. State, 1961, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 617, 343 S.W.2d 452, 454. See also, People v. Aldridge, 1960, 19 Ill.2d 176, 166 N.E.2d 563, 565. The appellant was indicted on April 3, 1969 for the unlawful sale on November 6, 1968 of a narcotic drug ('Cannabis S......
  • People v. Gonzales
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 2, 1970
    ...give rise to an inference against the State. The People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320, 325, 172 N.E.2d 765 (1961); The People v. Aldridge, 19 Ill.2d 176, 180, 166 N.E.2d 563 (1960); The People v. Jones, 30 Ill.2d 186, 190, 195 N.E.2d 698 (1964). The People, however, may accept the risk of unexpl......
  • People v. McCasle
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1966
    ...not inconsistent. (People v. Wilson, 29 Ill.2d 82, 193 N.E.2d 449; People v. Brinn, 32 Ill.2d 232, 245, 204 N.E.2d 724; People v. Aldridge, 19 Ill.2d 176, 166 N.E.2d 563; People v. Grilec, 2 Ill.2d 538, 542, 119 N.E.2d 232.) Additionally, there is no showing that defendant was prejudiced by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • New Techniques in Defending Drug Cases
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 4-5, May 1975
    • Invalid date
    ...2d 494, 155 N.E.2d 578 (1959). 32. 155 N.E.2d at 580. 33. Chap. 38, par. 192.1(10). 34. 16 Ill. 2d 595, 597, 158 N.E.2d 639 (1959). 35. 19 Ill. 2d 176, 155 N.E.2d 563 (1960). 36. 125 Ga. App. 869, 189 S.E.2d 448 (1972). 37. Chap. 79A-802(10). 38. 109 Ariz. 96, 505 P.2d 556 (1973). 39. To th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT