People v. Frank
| Decision Date | 27 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 49583 |
| Citation | 51 Ill.App.2d 251,201 N.E.2d 197 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Eddie FRANK (Impleaded), Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., State of Illinois, Springfield, for defendant in error; Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty. Cook County, Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., Elmer C. Kissane, and Richard T. Buck, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.
August A. Grundei, Vincent P. Reilly, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
The defendant, Eddie Frank, and Edward Washington, a co-defendant, were charged with the unlawful sale of narcotic drugs in violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. Chap. 38, Sec. 22-3) in an indictment filed in the Criminal Court of Cook County. Washington was found not guilty and Frank was found guilty after a joint bench trial and sentenced to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a minimum period of twelve years and a maximum period of fifteen years. The defendant's grounds for seeking a reversal of his conviction are as follows:
That the defendant, Eddie Frank, was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in that (1) the trial court could not logically have found defendant guilty where his testimony and that of his co-defendant so contradicted that of the State's principal witness that the co-defendant was found not guilty; and (2) there was no effective corroboration of the informer's actions either in the form of a complete search, surveillance of the transaction, recovery of all the marked bills or immediate arrest.
This case is an example of an arrest made as a result of a 'controlled buy' where a police informer makes a narcotics purchase with marked money and the police shortly thereafter arrest the alleged seller. From the evidence it appears that on the evening of December 11, 1962, at approximately 9 or 9:30 P.M., the State's witness, James Henry, a narcotics addict and informer met Narcotics Inspectors Webster, Rathel and Paschel at 50th Street and Cottage Grove Avenue. Henry was searched by one of the officers and then handed five $1.00 bills, the serial numbers of which were recorded. He was then driven to 42nd Street and South Park Avenue where he left the squad car and attempted to make a narcotics purchase while under constant observation by the officers. He was unsuccessful and returned to the car.
The police officers then drove Henry to 43rd Street between South Park and Calumet where he left the auto for the second time, walking one half block west to a pool hall located at 43rd and Calumet. What occurred inside the pool room is subject to dispute.
According to the informer, he walked up to Edward Washington, the co-defendant in the trial below, and asked where Eddie Frank was. Washington replied that Frank was in the rear of the pool hall. The informer, Henry, walked to the rear and observed that Washington was following him. He spotted Frank and asked to purchase narcotics from him. He gave Frank the marked bills in exchange for a tin foil packet. Frank immediately turned over the money to Washington who had been standing only a foot away during the entire transaction. Henry left the pool hall and walked to the nearby 'El' station where the police were waiting. He turned the tin foil package over to the officers and then spotted Washington coming out of the pool hall and heading for the 'Hamburger Hub,' a restaurant directly beneath the 'El' tracks and across the street from the station. Washington was apprehended, placed under arrest and four of the marked bills were found on his person as a result of a search conducted in the presence of one of the testifying officers. A few moments later Frank was arrested in the pool room and the remaining marked bill was found in his possession.
Co-defendant Washington testified that Henry entered the pool room and asked him where Frank could be found. He directed Henry to the rear of the pool hall, but did not follow him. He knew nothing of the alleged sale of narcotics and testified that he received the four marked bills from Frank as payment of a loan. Frank gave him the $4.00 from approximately $23.00 which Washington assumed that Frank had won in the pool game.
Frank testified that he was shooting pool when Henry, an acquaintance of his, approached him and said, 'Hello.' Frank was gambling as a participant in the pool game and Henry proceeded to make some bets on the game with men standing around the table. Frank did not bet directly with Henry. Frank denied any conversation with Henry relating to sale of narcotics. Later Washington walked to the back of the pool room and asked for the return of $4.00 loaned to Frank earlier in the day, as he was hungry and wished something to eat. Frank gave him the money. Henry 'hung' around the pool room for about ten minutes according to Frank and his arrest occurred about ten minutes after Henry left. Eddie Frank denied receiving any money from Henry and did not know who gave him the marked bill or when he acquired it.
Officer Rathel testified for the State and corroborated all of Henry's testimony as to the procedures employed in the 'buy'. The officer did, however, testify that neither he nor his associates were able to observe what took place in the pool room. The parties stipulated that the packet which Henry turned over to the police after emerging from the pool room contained heroin.
The defendant first contends that a conviction based upon this informer's testimony will not stand the test of reasonable doubt since the evidence of the same witness was insufficient to convict his co-defendant. We think otherwise. It was not a matter of disbelieving the witness, as counsel argues, which resulted in the not guilty finding as to Washington; it was rather a result of the State's inability to introduce evidence connecting him with the crime of selling narcotics. The record is clear that the informer never asked Washington for narcotics nor did the informer receive narcotics from him or hand him any money. The only evidence against Washington was the finding of four of the five pre-recorded bills on his person when he was searched. Both Washington and Frank when testifying in their defense stated that Washington received the Four Dollars as part repayment of a loan made earlier in the day.
Defendant's second contention is that there was a failure of corroboration of the informer's actions and testimony by any of the methods which the law demands as protection for the accused in 'controlled buy' situat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Frank
...His writ of error with appointed counsel was, in 1964, transferred to the appellate court, which affirmed. (People v. Frank, 51 Ill.App.2d 251, 201 N.E.2d 197.) There was no petition for leave to appeal to this court from the appellate court affirmance. The present appeal is from the dismis......
-
People v. Blackburn
... ... Absence of total surveillance by the officers goes only to the weight of the informer's testimony. People v. Frank, 51 Ill.App.2d 251, 201 N.E.2d 197. Therefore, we find no merit in the argument that attacks the sufficiency of the evidence on this ground.' ... Clearly, if the testimony of an addict-informer standing alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt, then certainly the clear and ... ...
-
People v. Coles, 1-89-1122
...transactions involving narcotics. In a "controlled buy" the party making the purchase is an addict-informer. (See People v. Frank (1964), 51 Ill.App.2d 251, 256, 201 N.E.2d 197.) The police do not actively participate in the purchase. However, a reading of all the cases analyzing evidence o......
-
People v. Brown
...not corroborated. Absence of total surveillance by the officers goes only to the weight of the informer's testimony. People v. Frank, 51 Ill.App.2d 251, 201 N.E.2d 197. Therefore, we find no merit in the argument that attacks the sufficiency of the evidence on this ground. Likewise, we find......