People v. Fox
| Decision Date | 25 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 35877,35877 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Louis FOX, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Edward J. Donahue, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
Defendant, Louis Fox, waived a jury trial and was convicted in the criminal court of Cook County of the crime of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than seven years, and now prosecutes this writ of error for review.
The record indicates that on the morning of April 28, 1958, the Chicago police, having procured a warrant to search an apartment at 25 S. Winchester Avenue, went to that address and were met at the door by Julian Durrough, described as defendant's girl friend. The name 'Fox' appeared on the warrant, and when the officers inquired if he was home the young lady replied that he had gone to the cleaners and would return in a few minutes. The officers then searched the apartment and found a packet of heroin in a pocket-sized book that was sitting on an end table in the apartment kitchen. In about ten minutes defendant returned with the cleaning, one garment being a man's coat, and was placed under arrest. A search of his person revealed no narcotics, but when shown the packet of heroin previously found in the kitchen defendant said:
Testifying in his own behalf, defendant conceded that he had made such an admission of ownership but stated he had done so because he was afraid the police were going to beat him. He denied owning the packet of drugs or the book in which it was found, and although he professed to know of his own knowledge that the drugs did not belong to his girl friend, he said he did not know to whom they did belong. During the course of his examination defendant testified that he had been confined in a correctional institution in Michigan for a narcotics offense, but said that he had not been in contact with addicts or narcotics since he returned home, and that he had 'kicked' the narcotics habit since being released. On direct examination he denied that he had lived in the apartment and stated that he lived with his mother at 1728 W. Monroe Street and kept his clothing there. However, when asked on cross-examination if he had not kept his clothing in his girl friend's apartment he replied: 'No, I didn't have any clothing.'
Idell Hurn, defendant's mother, testified that her son had lived with her since his release from the institution in Michigan, an event which she said had occurred 'about the second week in April,' a short time before the present incident occurred.
Defendant's girl friend, Julian Durrough, testified that the apartment was 'in her name,' and denied that she and defendant had been living together at the time of his arrest. She related that defendant visited her there; that he had gone on an errand for her this particular morning; and explained that the male garment in the dry cleaning picked up by defendant belonged to her brother-in-law one Richard Rodgers. Further, the witness testified that she lived alone in the apartment at the time of trial, but that a man and a woman, Ivory Hannon and Geraldine Page, were living with her in the apartment on the day defendant was arrested and that each had access to the kitchen. Earlier, defendant had testified there were four or five roomers in the apartment.
Recent decisions of this court establish that in order to support a conviction of the crime of possession of narcotic drugs, the State must prove not only that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the narcotics, but also that they were in the immediate and exclusive control of the accused. (People v. Embry, 20 Ill.2d 331, 169 N.E.2d 767; People v. Matthews, 18 Ill.2d 164, 163 N.E.2d 469; People v. Mack, 12 Ill.2d 151, 145 N.E.2d 609.) By the same decisions it is settled that actual physical possession is not required and that possession may be constructive as well as actual. Two things may be conceded in the present case. First, that there is proof of defendant's knowledge of the presence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Valentin, 82-1608
-
People v. Stamps
...personal present dominion over a chattel, but with an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion." People v. Fox (1962), 24 Ill.2d 581, 585, 182 N.E.2d 692, 694. The significance of the element of control in establishing constructive possession was explained in People v. Nettles......
-
People v. Adams
...to exercise control in his own behalf, and he has not abandoned them and no other person has obtained possession. People v. Fox (1962), 24 Ill.2d 581, 585, 182 N.E.2d 692. In this case, the jury could certainly have concluded that Gloria's associates had physical control of the drugs with i......
-
Ludlow v. State, 2-573A110
...possession, (at p. 558), and 25 Am.Jur.2d Drugs, Narcotics and Poisons § 21 (1966). In Thomas, supra, citing People v. Fox, 24 Ill.2d 581, 182 N.E.2d 692 (1962), our Supreme Court adopted the definition of 'constructive possession' as defined in the Fox case, namely, that consists of 'an in......