People v. Carmichael
| Decision Date | 23 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 50331 |
| Citation | 80 Ill.App.2d 293,225 N.E.2d 458 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur CARMICHAEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
R. Eugene Pincham, Charles B. Evins and Earl E. Strayhorn, Chicago, for appellant.
Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago, Elmer C. Kissane, Joel M. Flaum, James B. Klein, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel, for appellee.
In a nonjury trial the defendant was convicted on two counts--the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug and the unlawful sale thereof. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for terms of 5 to 10 years and 10 to 12 years for the respective offenses. He contends that a police informer supplied the narcotics which provided the basis for the charges against him and that this constituted entrapment. A summary of the testimony follows.
Police Officer Mitchell Ware of the Illinois Narcotics Division testified that Charles Brooks, who at the time was under arrest for a narcotics violation, told him that he (Brooks) could purchase narcotics from defendant. On September 9, 1963, Brooks who was in Rockford, Illinois, telephoned defendant in Chicago and arranged to come to his apartment the following day to buy some marijuana. On September 10, 1963, Officers Joseph Mandell and Mike Iasparro of the Winnebago County Sheriff's Police drove Brooks from Rockford to police headquarters in Chicago, where he was searched by Ware and given $55 in marked money. Brooks was then driven by the police officers to defendant's apartment and went into the building while the police waited in the car. Ware stated that a few minutes later Brooks returned to the car with a bag containing narcotics which he said he received from the defendant in exchange for $46 of the marked currency.
Ware and the other policemen then entered defendant's apartment from the front and rear doors and discovered two quantities of marijuana in the apartment and $15 of the marked money on defendant's person. On cross-examination Ware testified that the $15 represented all the marked money that was recovered.
Ware further testified that on November 26, 1963, subsequent to defendant's arrest, he had occasion to speak with defendant in the corridor of the Criminal Courts Building, where defendant related that on the night of the arrest Brooks brought the narcotics to defendant's apartment in the heel of his shoe. Ware said that defendant also admitted that he and Brooks 'used to smoke pot together.'
On cross-examination, Ware testified that Brooks was given $15 in expense money for cooperating with police; that he would be further reimbursed for any loss of income because of time spent testifying for the State, and that he was told that his working with the police would be brought to the attention of the State's Attorney of Boone County, Illinois, where he faced trial for a narcotics violation.
Charles Brooks testified on behalf of the State, corroborating the testimony of Officer Ware with respect to arranging a controlled purchase of narcotics from defendant. He described the purchase as follows:
He testified that he paid defendant $46 for the narcotics; that he left the apartment and returned to the car where the police officers were waiting and gave Ware the drugs he had purchased and the remainder of the marked money, which amounted to $9.
On cross-examination Brooks said that he was arrested on July 27, 1963, for unlawful possession of narcotics; that the case was disposed of prior to the defendant's trial; that he was also arrested on October 31, 1964, for the same offense and that cause was still pending (at the time of defendant's trial); that he had been, but was not presently, a user of narcotics. He testified with respect to the earlier arrest that he had not been promised any consideration for working with the police, but later said that the police told him it would be to his advantage to cooperate. Brooks stated that he had known defendant for three years; that he had been to defendant's apartment two or three times with his young daughter and that he did not recall whether he had been there during the ten day period prior to defendant's arrest.
Defendant testified in his own behalf that he had known the police informer Brooks for eight or nine years prior to the arrest; that Brooks came to his apartment on Sunday, September 1, 1963 at about 9:00 a.m.; that he had his baby...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jamieson
...v. Boccelli, 105 Ariz. 495, 467 P.2d 740 (1970); People v. Dollen, 53 Ill.2d 280, 282-285, 290 N.E.2d 879 (1972); People v. Carmichael, 80 Ill.App.2d 293, 225 N.E.2d 458 (1967); State v. Overmann, 220 N.W.2d 914 (Iowa, 1974); People v. Jones, 73 Ill.App.2d 55, 219 N.E.2d 12 The overwhelming......
-
United States v. Mahoney
...States v. Dillet, 265 F.Supp. 980 (S.D.N.Y.1966); United States v. Silva, 180 F.Supp. 557 (S.D. N.Y.1959); People v. Carmichael, 80 Ill. App.2d 293, 225 N.E.2d 458 (1967); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320, 172 N.E. 2d 765 (1961); People v. Jones, 73 Ill. App.2d 55, 219 N.E.2d 12 (1966); Stat......
-
Jones v. State
...mere inducement. In reality the government is supplying the sine qua non of the offense. (172 N.E.2d at 768). In People v. Carmichael, 80 Ill.App.2d 293, 225 N.E.2d 458 (1967) the court held that where a defendant testified that he was supplied by a police informer with narcotics which were......
-
United States v. Bueno
... ... United States v. Dillet, 265 F.Supp. 980 (S.D. N.Y.1966); United States v. Silva, 180 F.Supp. 557 (S.D.N.Y.1959); People v. Carmichael, 80 Ill.App.2d 293, 225 N.E. 2d 458 (1967); People v. Strong, 21 Ill. 2d 320, 172 N.E.2d 765 (1961); People v. Jones, 73 Ill.App.2d 55, ... ...