People v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 24 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 3-89-0657,3-89-0657
• Citation: 202 Ill.App.3d 20,147 Ill.Dec. 394,559 N.E.2d 567
• Parties: , 147 Ill.Dec. 394 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Allester ALEXANDER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 567

559 N.E.2d 567

202 Ill.App.3d 20, 147 Ill.Dec. 394

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Allester ALEXANDER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3-89-0657.

Appellate Court of Illinois Third District.

Aug. 24, 1990.

Dan Kirwan, Deputy Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Fifth Dist. Office, Mt. Vernon, for Allester Alexander.

Rita Kennedy Mertel, argued, States' Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa and Kevin W. Lyons, State's Atty., Peoria, for the People.

Justice STOUDER delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Allester Alexander, was found guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (Ill.Rev. Stat.1987, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1402.1) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1401.1). The trial court entered judgment on the intent to deliver count and sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

On January 12, 1989, Officers Steve Peterson and James Bridges of the Peoria Police Department received information that a woman they were looking for in connection with a fraud case was seen at an apartment complex. The informant indicated that the woman was in apartment 2F. The officers went to the complex, knocked on the door to 2F, and identified themselves as police officers. Edward McNeeley, the tenant, answered the door. He stepped into the hallway, closing the door behind him. The officers informed McNeeley that they were looking for Paula Carroll and that they would like to look through his apartment. McNeeley agreed to the search but requested that the officers wait a few moments while he picked up some clothing. McNeeley reentered the apartment, closed the door and locked it.

Bridges told Peterson that he was afraid someone would attempt to escape out the back of the apartment, so he went downstairs and walked toward the back door to the apartment building. As he approached the back door, Bridges heard "a noise like somewhat muffled metallic rattling." Bridges went outside and noticed a white plastic garbage bag on the ground beneath the window of apartment 2F.

Meanwhile, Peterson was allowed into McNeeley's apartment to conduct the search for Paula Carroll. Peterson noticed the defendant in the living room of the apartment. After looking through the apartment and finding that Carroll was not there, Peterson left the apartment and met Bridges coming up the stairs. The officers went outside and Bridges showed Peterson the garbage bag. Bridges reached into the bag and pulled out a blanket. As he pulled out the blanket, a triple beam scale dropped out of the blanket. The officers looked into the plastic garbage bag and noted a paper grocery bag containing a paper carton. This carton was open. The officers noticed a white powdery substance in the carton which was spilling out into the paper bag. As the officers were considering their next move, they heard the defendant in the hallway say something to the effect, "I will be back in a few minutes." The defendant came down the stairs and was confronted by the officers. The defendant was asked whether he was the individual Peterson had just seen in apartment 2F. The defendant replied "no," and that he had been in the apartment across the hall working. McNeeley then came downstairs. McNeeley and the defendant were arrested, handcuffed, and made to sit on the floor in the hallway, while other officers were called to the apartment complex. At one point, the defendant complained that the handcuffs were too tight. The defendant stood up and while the handcuffs were being loosened, Bridges noticed something protruding from the defendant's back pocket. Bridges retrieved the object described as a round rubber grommet. It was later shown that the object was used to stabilize a triple beam scale during shipping.

The defendant testified that he had been dropped off at the apartment complex and that he planned to meet a woman called Sparky. After he was unable to locate her, he began walking down the road and was picked up by McNeeley, who he thought lived down the road from the complex. Instead, McNeeley returned to the apartment complex. The defendant testified that he had not known that McNeeley maintained an apartment in the complex. The defendant asked to use McNeeley's phone to call Sparky.

The two had not been in McNeeley's apartment very long when there was a knock on the door and the police announced their presence. McNeeley went into the hall and spoke with the officer. He reentered the apartment and while motioning toward a bedroom told the defendant to "get rid of that stuff." The defendant ran to the bedroom and noticed a blanket in the middle of the room. He bundled up the blanket and stuffed it into a paper bag he found sitting open in the room. He noted an object in the blanket which he testified he later learned was the triple beam scale. He took the paper bag and put it into a white plastic garbage bag he also found in the bedroom. He then threw it all out the window. The defendant testified that he did not know of the presence of any drugs and that he thought the items he threw out the window were stolen goods. After throwing the bag out the window he noticed a small rubber object on the floor in the area where the blanket had been laying. He picked the object up and put it in his back pocket. The defendant's fingerprint was found on the paper carton, which tests later showed contained 801.9 grams of 99.7% pure cocaine.

On appeal, the defendant contends that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was insufficient to show that he had actual or constructive possession of the cocaine.

When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill.2d 237, 87 Ill.Dec. 910, 478 N.E.2d 267.

To support a conviction for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the controlled substance and that it was in his immediate and exclusive control. (People v. Scott (1987), 152 Ill.App.3d 868, 105 Ill.Dec. 916, 505 N.E.2d 42.) Possession may be established by evidence of actual physical possession or constructive possession. (People v. Jones (1982), 105 Ill.App.3d 1143, 62 Ill.Dec. 25, 435 N.E.2d 823.) Actual possession requires an act of physical dominion over the narcotics while constructive possession requires a showing that the defendant controlled the premises upon which the narcotics are found. (People v. Calhoun (1977), 46 Ill.App.3d 691, 5 Ill.Dec. 55, 361 N.E.2d 55.) Actual possession is proved by testimony which shows defendant exercised some form of dominion over the unlawful substance, such as trying to conceal it or throw it away. People v. Scott (1987), 152 Ill.App.3d 868, 105 Ill.Dec. 916, 505 N.E.2d 42.

It is well settled that knowledge is an essential element in the chain of proof of the crime of possession of narcotics. (People v. Ackerman (1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 903, 274 N.E.2d 125.) Although the element of knowledge is seldom susceptible to direct proof it may be proved by evidence of acts, declarations or conduct of the accused from which the inference may fairly be drawn...