People v. Embry
| Decision Date | 31 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35553,35553 |
| Citation | 20 Ill.2d 331,169 N.E.2d 767 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph EMBRY, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Robert J. Sulski, Chicago, for plaintiff 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.
Defendant, Joseph Embry, was convicted in the criminal court of Cook County of the crime of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs and we had issued a writ of error to review the judgment of conviction.
The only error assigned is that the evidence was insufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A police office testified that he searched defendant's apartment and found seven packages of narcotics under some towels in the bathroom. Defendant was in the kitchen of the apartment and, in addition to defendant, there were five other persons in the apartment at the time of the search. Yvonne Embry, Elaine Flynn and Terry Mitchell were in a bedroom, and Ann Smith and Frank Houze were in the front room. Defendant admitted that it was his apartment and that he paid the rent. When he was asked if the narcotics belonged to him, he shrugged his shoulders and neither admitted nor denied ownership. All of the other occupants of the apartment likewise neither admitted nor denied ownership of the narcotics. All of the occupants of the apartment were placed under arrest.
For the defense, Elaine Flynn testified that when she got to the apartment on the day in question, Yvonne Embry, defendant's wife, was in the kitchen fixing up some packages of narcotics. She testified that defendant came into the apartment about forty-five minutes after the witness arrived and she never saw him in possession of any narcotics. On cross-examination of this witness, she admitted that she was a user of narcotics. She stated that she had never had any transactions with defendant concerning narcotics, but had had some dealings with defendant's wife, Yvonne. She further testified on cross-examination that the narcotics did not belong to her nor to Terry Mitchell, Ann Smith, or Frank Houze. Terry Mitchell testified that she was also an addict and had never dealt with defendant. She also saw Yvonne Embry preparing the packages of drugs.
Defendant testified that he and Yvonne had been separated for a short time before the arrest but he still paid the rent on the apartment and kept his clothes there. He claimed that he had left his wife after an argument over her narcotics habit and that he had not been in the apartment for over a week before his arrest. On the day of his arrest, he went to the apartment to pick up some clothes and talk to his wife, but when he saw that his wife was asleep, he went in the dining room to watch television. When the officers came in and searched the apartment and showed him the narcotics they had found, he was dumbfounded and said, 'Here I go again.' He denied knowledge that the narcotics were in his apartment, but testified that he knew that the drugs did not belong to Elaine Flynn, Terry Mitchell, Ann Smith, or Frank Houze, and conceded that this left only him and Yvonne as the possible owners.
When taken to the police station, defendant was again questioned about the drugs and he then denied knowing about them. He testified that he did not know at the time of his arrest who owned the narcotics but that he had since learned that they belonged to his wife. However, he had never told the authorities that they belonged to his wife.
It was brought out that Yvonne had been arrested on several narcotics charges and had been released on bail. At the time of defendant's trial, there was a warrant out for her arrest and she had failed to appear in one of the cases pending against her. Defendant testified that he had begged his wife to come in and testify for him, but she did not appear. He had talked to her on the phone a few days before the trial, at a time when she was a fugitive from justice, but he did not tell either the authorities or his own lawyer that he had been in contact with her. It was stipulated at the trial that defendant had been previously convicted of the crimes of burglary, larceny of a motor vehicle and sale of narcotics.
Defendant argues that this evidence is insufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the crime of unlawful possession of the narcotics. In People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stamps
...control over the building, such control is sufficient, in our view, for purposes of proving unlawful possession. (See People v. Embry (1960), 20 Ill.2d 331, 169 N.E.2d 767; People v. Miller (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 970, 53 Ill.Dec. 348, 423 N.E.2d 1152; People v. Kline (1976), 41 Ill.App.3d 26......
-
People v. Melgoza
...which inferences may be fairly drawn that he knew of the existence of the drugs at the place where they were found. People v. Embry (1960), 20 Ill.2d 331, 334, 169 N.E.2d 767. Possession and knowledge are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of fact and will not be disturbed on r......
-
People v. Frieberg
...the possession of the substance, and that the narcotics were in the immediate and exclusive control of defendant. (People v. Embry (1960), 20 Ill.2d 331, 334, 169 N.E.2d 767; People v. Bell (1972), 53 Ill.2d 122, 126, 290 N.E.2d 214; People v. Smith (1960), 20 Ill.2d 345, 350-51, 169 N.E.2d......
-
People of The State of Ill. v. GIVENS
...mean, however, that the possession may not be joint. Schmalz, 194 Ill.2d at 82, 251 Ill.Dec. 489, 740 N.E.2d 775; People v. Embry, 20 Ill.2d 331, 335-36, 169 N.E.2d 767 (1960). If two or more persons share the intention and power to exercise control, then each has possession. Schmalz, 194 I......