People v. Bazemore
| Decision Date | 25 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36809,36809 |
| Citation | 25 Ill.2d 74,182 N.E.2d 649 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Winston Lee BAZEMORE, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Coghlan, Coghlan & Joyce, Chicago (John P. Coghlan, Sr., and John P. Coghlan, Jr., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Attorney, Chicago , for defendant in error.
Defendant, Winston Lee Bazemore, was found guilty of the unlawful sale of narcotic drugs after a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten to twelve years. He prosecutes this writ of error for review, contending he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The real issue presented is whether the testimony of a narcotics addict, uncorroborated by other evidence, facts or circumstances in the case, is sufficient to convict.
The principal witness for the prosecution was John Lenier, alias John Lewis, an informer who had been assisting the police in narcotics matters for about nine months prior to defendant's arrest. This witness, who stated he had known defendant two or three years, testified that for several days prior to August 10, 1960, he had seen defendant in the vicinity of a pool hall and had observed as defendant had made sales on the street of what the witness assumed to be narcotics. He reported the matter to police officer Clemie Paschal and, on the night of August 10, met Paschal and other officers on a street corner near the pool hall. At that time the officers searched him, found that he had no narcotics on his person and gave him $10 in currency after recording the serial numbers. Unaccompanied by the officers, who remained in a police car about a block away, Lenier walked to the vicinity of the pool hall and later returned with two tinfoil packets which were found to contain a derivative of opium. At the trial, Lenier testified he had purchased the packets from defendant with the money furnished by the police.
After receiving a description of the seller and information as to where the sale had taken place, the police made a search of the area but found no trace of defendant. According to Lenier, he next saw defendant two months later in the same vicinity and reported to Paschal whom he found seated in a police vehicle a short distance away. Defendant was apprehended at this time. No narcotics were found on his person, nor was any of the inventoried money ever recovered.
When cross-examined, Lenier related that he had been unemployed since February, 1960, and that from such time until the date of defendant's arrest, being motivated by a desire to help clean up the narcotics traffic, he had assisted the police in making five arrests by acting as an informer. He said he received no compensation for the work, but did it as a civic duty. Further, he testified that he had been a narcotics addict for about two years, requiring quiring two 'shots' a day, and that he had purchased narcotics for his own use from defendant in January, 1960. Immediately thereafter, however, he stated that he had never been competely addicted but was a 'joypopper', meaning he was one who took narcotics only for an occasional lift. In one instance he testified he had not used narcotics for three and one-half months, but on another stated he had his last shot two months before the trial.
Concerning the alleged purchase from defendant on August 10, Lenier testified there were several persons standing around who saw what happened, but that he had never informed the police there were witnesses to his transaction with defendant.
Officer Paschal's testimony, insofar as material to the issue on appeal, was that he knew Lenier was an addict, but had never arrested him, and that he had loaned Lenier money which had never been paid back. As to the events of August 10, the officer conceded the informer had not been kept under surveillance and that he, the officer, did not in fact know if the narcotics had been purchased from defendant.
Testifying in his own behalf, defendant stated he had never sold or possessed narcotics; that he did not know Lenier personally; that he had not seen the informer on the night of August 10; that he resided at 448 E. 48th Street on such date and had continued to reside there until arrested; and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. David
...the witness was actually under the influence of the drug at the time of the occurrence to which he testifies. (See People v. Bazemore (1962), 25 Ill.2d 74, 77, 182 N.E.2d 649.) Defendant's instruction, therefore, was overbroad and was not a correct statement of the Defendant next argues tha......
-
Crowe v. State
...this to be the standard applied by the intermediate appellate courts in Illinois subsequent to the decision in People v. Bazemore, 25 Ill.2d 74, 182 N.E.2d 649 (1962). In this context we believe that the testimony of but one witness, be it an informer, an accomplice or an undercover policem......
-
People v. Gulley
...Cantrell to be a narcotics addict, the testimony of Cantrell was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. Defendant cites People v. Bazemore, 25 Ill.2d 74, 182 N.E.2d 649, and People v. Hamby, 6 Ill.2d 559, 129 N.E.2d 746, in support of this contention. Neither of these cases is controlling ......
-
People v. Polk
...311. (Emphasis added.) John Lenier was searched and found to be free of narcotics by Chicago police officers in People v. Bazemore (1962), 25 Ill.2d 74, 182 N.E.2d 649. The officers gave Lenier $10 in currency after recording the serial numbers. Lenier went to a pool hall and, he testified,......