People v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 20 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 36061,36061 |
| Citation | 172 N.E.2d 785,21 Ill.2d 347 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Fannie ALEXANDER et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
George M. Crane, Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.
William L. Guild, 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 defendant in error.
The defendants, Fannie Alexander and Marie Walker, were tried in the criminal court of Cook County by the court without a jury on three separate indictments. In two of these indictments the defendants were jointly charged, together with one Bo Handsborough, with the crimes of conspiracy to sell narcotics and the sale of narcotics. In the third indictment the defendant Marie Walker was charged with possession of narcotics. The indictments were nolled as to Handsborough and were then consolidated for trial, and each defendant was found guilty under each indictment. A writ of error has been issued from this court to review the judgments of conviction. While under normal circumstances the practice of obtaining review of separate judgments of conviction by a single writ of error is not permitted, the practice has been sanctioned by this court. People v. De Cola, 15 Ill.2d 527, 155 N.E.2d 622. We find in the present case that the crimes with which the defendants were charged in the three indictments were related to each other and we are of the opinion that an orderly administration of justice permits the review of the three convictions on a single writ of error.
Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt and that there was a variance between the indictments and the proof. The defendant Walker contends that evidence obtained through an unlawful search was admitted in evidence on the indictment in in which she was charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. We shall first consider the contention that the evidence failed to establish the guilt of the defendants in the conspiracy case and in the sale of narcotics case.
A Federal agent, Dennis Dayle, testified that in the morning of July 8, 1959, he had a conversation with Bo Handsborough and gave him $415. About two hours later Handsborough returned with some narcotics and Dayle paid him an additional $85 and received the narcotics from Handsborough. Handsborough testified that on July 8, he was acquainted with Dayle, but did not know that he was a narcotics agent. Dayle on that date gave him $415 with which to buy narcotics and he went to Fannie Alexander's residence and said that he had come for some dope for a friend of his. Fannie told him that the price would be $500 and told him to go to Marie Walker's house to get the dope. He testified that he gave Fannie Alexander $500 and went to Marie's house. She told him that Fannie had called her and told her that Bo was coming and she gave him a quantity of narcotics which he took back to Dayle. Bo told Dayle that the narcotics cost $500 and Dayle gave him $85 more. There was some further testimony as to later transactions between Handsborough and Dayle in which Handsborough attempted to buy more narcotics for Dayle. Inasmuch as the sale and conspiracy indictments alleged a sale on July 8, we are of the opinion that this evidence should not be considered.
Each of the defendants testified in her own defense. Fannie Alexander denied that she ever received any money from Handsborough for the purposes of suplying him or anybody else with narcotics. She testified that Handsborough did call her one morning and tell her that he had some money and wanted to get some heroin but she told him not to talk to her about narcotics. Marie Walker denied ever furnishing narcotics to Bo Handsborough.
At the conclusion of all the evidence the trial judge stated that the case did not have the corroboration that he would like to see in a narcotics case but that he felt that there was ample evidence to show that the defendants were conspiring with Handsborough to sell narcotics. The judge stated that he was satisfied with the testimony of Handsborough even though it was not corroborated as much as he would like.
The defendants contend that the evidence fails to show a sale by defendant to Dayle and contend that, at the most, the evidence shows a sale to Handsborough. The same argument is advanced in support of the charge that there is a variance between the indictments, which allege a conspiracy to sell and a sale to Dayle. This argument ignores the realities of the situation. It is true that the evidence showed that Handsborough gave the money to Mrs. Alexander and that Mrs. Walker gave the narcotics to Handsborough. However, the evidence is also clear that Dayle had given Handsborough the money to buy narcotics for him and both of the defendants knew that Handsborough was buying the narcotics for someone else. Therefore, if the testimony of Dayle and Handsborough was believed by the trial judge, there was sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy to sell narcotics and a sale of narcotics by the defendants to Dayle, and the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Teague, 57578
...the officers from attack, to prevent the escape of the prisoner, or to discover the fruits of the crime * * *.' People v. Alexander, 21 Ill.2d 347, 172 N.E.2d 785 (1961). On the rationale of Alexander defendant argues, and we agree, that without his consent, considering the charge here (rap......
-
People v. Fletcher
...from serious bodily harm, to prevent the prisoner from escaping, or to discover the fruits of the crime. (See People v. Alexander (1961), 21 Ill.2d 347, 352, 172 N.E.2d 785, 788, Cert. denied, 368 U.S. 875, 82 S.Ct. 122, 7 L.Ed.2d 77, see generally Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 38......
-
People v. Peak
...the arresting officer from attack, to prevent the prisoner from escaping, or to discover the fruits of the crime. (People v. Alexander, 21 Ill.2d 347, 172 N.E.2d 785; People v. Burnett, 20 Ill.2d 624, 170 N.E.2d 546; People v. Watkins, 19 Ill.2d 11, 166 N.E.2d 433; People v. Heidman, 11 Ill......
-
People v. Nordstrom
...from attack, to prevent escape, or to discover the fruits of the crime or the means by which it was committed. People v. Alexander, 21 Ill.2d 347, 352, 172 N.E.2d 785 (1961); People v. Burnett, 20 Ill.2d 624, 625, 626, 170 N.E.2d 546 (1960); People v. Van Scoyk, 20 Ill.2d 232, 235, 170 N.E.......