People v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 22 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 49530 |
| Citation | 202 N.E.2d 269,52 Ill.App.2d 481 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Carlos GARCIA, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
George E. Batten, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago, Fred G. Leach, E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., Elmer C. Kissane, William J. Nellis, Asst. State's Attys., of Counsel, for defendant in error.
A writ of error was issued by the Supreme Court to review a judgment of the criminal court to Cook County entered on a jury verdict finding the defendant, Carlos Garcia, guilty of possession of narcotics in violation of the Uniform Narcotics Drug Act of the state of Illinois (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 38, pars. 192.28-1-192.28-44), and sentencing him to not less than four years nor more than eight years in the Illinios Penitentiary. The case is before us having been transferred from the Supreme Court.
Defendant argues (1) that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated by the police was in fact a narcotic drug, and (3) that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged narcotics were in the possession of the defendant.
The first State's witness, Robert Lopez, a Chicago police officer, testified in substance as follows: On June 29, 1961, he and his partner, Officer Fred Montejano, went with a search warrant to the Jet Hotel at 662 North Clark Street in the city of Chicago and proceeded to apartment number 39. They knocked on the door, and a male voice answered, 'Who is it?' They responded, They waited for approximately one minute, and, as there was no further response, they forced the door open. In the room were the defendant and one Marlene Miller who was in bed clad in pajamas. An argument ensued between the defendant and Officer Lopez over the officers' right to enter the apartment, and, as Officer Lopez was attempting to read the search warrant to the defendant, defendant snatched the warrant from his hands. A struggle ensued and Officer Montejano helped Officer Lopez subdue the defendant. Officer Lopez then searched the defendant and found ten foilcovered packages containing a white powder in the left-hand trouser pocket of the defendant's pants. He asked the defendant what the packages were, and the defendant stated that it was heroin, and it was for his own use. Officer Lopez then performed a field test on the contents of one of the packages. A field test consists of putting the suspected narcotics into a glass vial which contains a white chemical. If there is a purplish reaction, that is called a positive reaction, and it proves that the substance tested is a derivative of opium. He got a positive reaction from the contents of the foil package tested. The two officers subsequently made a thorough search of the apartment which failed to turn up additional evidence. Officer Montejano took Miss Miller to her room to get dressed while defendant and Officer Lopez waited in the hallway. Then both Miss Miller and the defendant were taken to the Narcotics Bureau. They made another raid in the Jet Hotel on the same day and recovered a quantity of marijuana from the apartment of a man named Cerano.
Officer Montejano was called as a witness for the State, and his testimony corroborated that of Officer Lopez. He also testified that the raid on Cerano's apartment was not conducted at the same time as the raid on defendant's apartment.
The parties entered into a stipulation that if Mr. Charles Vondrak were called to testify, he would testify that he is a qualified chemist employed by the Chicago Police Department Crime Detection Laboratory. That on June 29, 1961, Officer Lopez submitted to him ten foil-covered packages containing a quantity of unknown white powder. That the contents of two of these packages were tested, one package containing .07 grams, another package containing .06 grams. That these two packages were subjected to various chemical identity tests, and the results were as follows: That both packages contained diacetylmorphine hydrochloride, commonly referred to as heroin.
The defendant then was called and testified to the following in his own rehalf. On June 29, 1961 he was in his room with one Marlene Miller. He heard a knock on the door. He asked who was there, but there was no response. He ran to the door, but before he could open it, the door was forced open by two men, Officers Lopez and Montejano. The officers held their guns in his face and when he asked who they were, Officer Lopez said, 'Never mind who we are.' Officer Lopez then frisked the defendant and asked him where the gun was. When the defendant said, 'What Gun?' Officer Lopez hit him on the left side of his face and threatened to kill him if he didn't tell him where the gun was. When defendant responded, Officer Lopez hit him in the stomach and he fell to the floor. When he started to get up, Officer Lopez told him to stay where he was. Officer Montejano also told him to remain on the floor and emphasized his command with a kick in the groin. The two officers then searched the room and found nothing. Officer Lopez then repeated his threat to kill the defendant if he didn't tell him where the gun was. When defendant again insisted that he had no gun, Officer Lopez said, Officer Montejano left with Miss Miller and returned in a few minutes. While Officer Montejano held the defendant, Officer Lopez again searched the apartment. He found some pills in Miss Miller's purse, and, when the defendant denied any knowledge of them, he had Officer Montejano bring Miss Miller back into the room. Miss Miller admitted that the pills belonged to her, and Officer Montejano again took her from the room. When Officer Montejano returned, the two police officers took the defendant to room 35, which was the room which Miss Miller shared with a girl identified by the defendant as Pat. The officer kicked in the door. Pat and an unidentified man were in the room. The officers searched the apartment and then Officer Lopez took the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hill
... ... The State also contends that the preliminary color tests, coupled with the performance of the infrared tests on some of the packets was sufficient evidence to allow an inference ... Page 612 ... [120 Ill.Dec. 582] that all of the packets contained cocaine. People v. Garcia (1964), 52 Ill.App.2d 481, 202 N.E.2d 269 ... While the general rule is that a chemist need test only random samples in order to be qualified to render an expert opinion as to the whole amount seized, this rule has its limitations. (People v. Ayala (1981), 96 Ill.App.3d 880, 52 ... ...
-
People v. Hernandez
...a reasonable doubt that a substance is a narcotic. (See People v. Clark (1955), 7 Ill.2d 163, 130 N.E.2d 195; People v. Garcia (1964), 52 Ill.App.2d 481, 202 N.E.2d 269.) We find no Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the meaning of possessi......
-
People v. West
...of evidence introduced through the testimony of Works as to the presence of narcotics has been held sufficient. People v. Garcia, 52 Ill.App.2d 481, 487--488, 202 N.E.2d 269. See also People v. Clark, 7 Ill.2d 163, 171, 130 N.E.2d 195, 200, where the court Defendant also argues that doubt a......
-
People v. Washington
...v. Harrison, 26 Ill.2d 377, 379-380, 186 N.E.2d 657, cert. den. 373 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 1531, 10 L.Ed.2d 426; and People v. Garcia, 52 Ill.App.2d 481, 488, 202 N.E.2d 269. We are satisfied that in the case before us there was sufficient evidence to prove the sale of a narcotic drug beyond a ......