People v. Evans

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: BRYANT
• Citation: People v. Evans, 72 Ill.App.2d 146, 218 N.E.2d 781 (Ill. App. 1966)
• Decision Date: 21 June 1966
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 51037
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas EVANS, Appellant.

Page 781

218 N.E.2d 781

72 Ill.App.2d 146

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas EVANS, Appellant.

Gen. No. 51037.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.

June 21, 1966.

Norris J. Bishton, Jr., Chicago, for appellant.

Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Elmer C. Kissane, E. James Gildea, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.

BRYANT, Presiding Justice.

This appeal comes from a judgment entered October 31, 1962 upon a jury verdict finding the appellant, Thomas Evans, guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs. Ill.Rev.Stat. (1961) Ch. 38, § 22--3. The appellant claims that the People did not prove his guilt of the alleged crime.

The evidence shows that the appellant was arrested in a tavern by three policemen who were told by an informer that a man of his description possessed narcotics. The informer's name was given only as 'Herbie.' The evidence given by the two policemen who testified at the trial indicates that when the appellant and his companion saw the policemen approach them, they rose from their seats at the bar and hurried toward the men's room. No narcotics were found on the person of either man, but the police did find two cigarette packages containing narcotics stuck with chewing gum under the front of the bar. There was no evidence that anyone saw either man put the packages there. One policeman said that the appellant offered him a bribe if he would not arrest him. The appellant denied this.

We feel the People did not prove the appellant possessed narcotics. We are led to this conclusion by the opinion of the Supreme Court in People v. Jackson, 23 Ill.2d 360, 178 N.E.2d 320 (1961). In that case, the appellant, Dorothy Jackson, was indicted for the crime of unlawful possession of narcotics. She had been arrested after state narcotics inspectors had obtained a search warrant. When the inspectors knocked at the door, they were met by the appellant who had in her hand a large purse. An inspector displayed his badge and told her she was under arrest. The appellant then invited him in, but as he entered the apartment, she turned and ran down the hall and locked herself in a bathroom. This bathroom had a window which opened out onto an airwell. Several other apartments in this building also had windows with access to this airwell. The bathroom door was broken down and a check made by the inspectors showed that the toilet had not been used, nor had the sink. The appellant's purse was found open on the floor of the bathroom; the narcotics were found at the bottom of the airwell amidst a wide assortment of debris. The other debris showed evidence of having been rained on; the package containing the narcotics bore no such traces. The appellant is said to have appeared disturbed when shown the package.

The court noted that there was no fingerprint evidence presented by the State. The opinion states that the record did not show whether an attempt was made to obtain such evidence, but that it was a fair assumption that if such evidence was sought, the search was unsuccessful. The court continued by noting that the narcotics were not found in an area under the exclusive control of the appellant. The most that could be said, according to this opinion, is that the appellant had access to the airwell along with any number of other people. This, according to the...