People v. Gonzalez, 73--202

• Decision Date: 05 December 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73--202,73--202
• Citation: 24 Ill.App.3d 259,320 N.E.2d 197
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 197

320 N.E.2d 197

24 Ill.App.3d 259

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 73--202.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1974.

James J. Cutrone, Sam Adam, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Gerry L. Dondanville, State's Atty., Geneva, Clarence Wittenstrom, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.

SEIDENFELD, Justice.

Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of the offenses of possession and delivery of a controlled substance (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 56 1/2, pars. 1401, 1402) and sentenced to 2--6 years for each offense, to be served concurrently.

On appeal, defendant contends that it was reversible error to refuse his tendered instruction on the issue of entrapment, to admit a quantity of heroin seized from defendant's home without a warrant and to admit into evidence marked bills taken pursuant to an allegedly defective search warrant. He also claims that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper and deprived him of a fair trial.

The principal witness for the prosecution was James Walton, an informer, who, on July 18, 1972, made a controlled purchase of heroin from the defendant. He testified that on the day in question he was strip searched by Aurora police officers and provided with $35 in marked U.S. currency. He was then taken in an unmarked police car to the immediate vicinity of the defendant's home. He exited the vehicle, walked to the defendant's house, knocked on the door and was invited in. He told the defendant that he wanted to purchase heroin and handed the defendant the $35 in marked money. He then observed the defendant go to a coloring book on the stairway leading to the second floor and remove an aluminum foil packet containing heroin. Walton testified that he took the packet and returned to the police car. There, he told the police officers what had taken place and handed them the foil packet he had purchased from the defendant. He was again searched.

Officers Such and Beatus testified that they then proceeded to the front door of defendant's home. The inner door was open although the screen door was closed. The officers walked into the entranceway which led into the living room and observed defendant coming from the dining room area toward the living room. Officer Beatus announced that he was a police officer and told the defendant he was under arrest. The defendant then started walking away toward the couch in the living room but was told to wait and was then handcuffed. Officer Such who had been told by Walton that the heroin was taken from a coloring book with the upper right-hand corner torn off looked at the staircase upon entering and observed the coloring book on the stairway which was about four feet from the front door. He picked up the book and went through the pages, observing the presence of four more foil packets.

The defendant denied knowledge of the transaction or of the whereabouts of the pre-recorded funds.

Officers Such and Beatus then contacted Sgt. Genslinger of the Aurora Police Department and provided him with sufficient information to obtain a search warrant. Thereafter, the defendant's home was searched and the pre-recorded bills were recovered from the bathroom area of the house. The heroin and currency were admitted into evidence over defendant's objection.

The defendant testified that on July 17, 1972, Walton came to his home, showed him a gold bracelet in a jewelry box and offered to sell it. When defendant refused to buy, Walton requested a $35 loan instead. The defendant agreed to make the loan and the bracelet was used for security. The following day Walton returned and repaid the loan, whereupon defendant returned the box containing the bracelet. At that point the telephone rang and defendant testified that he left the living room to answer it, thus leaving Walton alone for a short period of time. While the defendant was on the phone he was unable to see Walton. As defendant re-entered the living room Walton, who was standing by the front door, said good-bye and left. Defendant said he was arrested a few minutes later.

Walton testified on rebuttal that he went to defendant's home on July 17th but that he did so in order to purchase more heroin. He denied making a loan from defendant and leaving the bracelet as security.

On this record we find no error in the refusal of the trial court ot give the tendered instruction on entrapment. It is clear that a defendant is entitled to an instruction explaining any theory of his defense which the jury might legitimately find to have been proven by the evidence. (People v. Kalpak (1957), 10 Ill.2d 411, 424, 140 N.E.2d 726.) Here, the theory of the defense as established by defendant's testimony was that the informer, in the guise of leaving security for a loan, had 'plainted' the contraband which defendant innocently returned to him upon repayment of the loan. If this were true, defendant acted without 'guilty knowledge', an essential element of the offense charged, and the required mental state for the crime was therefore lacking.

The defendant's theory was obviously before the jury and they had been properly instructed on the elements of the offense as well as the State's burden of proof. If the jury had believed that the defendant's testimony was more credible than that of the informer, they could easily have rendered a not guilty verdict within the confines of the instructions that were given. In addition, the defendant denied at all times that he possessed or sold any heroin, and it is clear that the defense of entrapment may not be raised when a defendant denies the facts constituting the offense. (People v. Calcaterra (1965), 33 Ill.2d 541, 546, 213 N.E.2d 270; People v. Realmo (1963), 28 Ill.2d 510, 512, 192 N.E.2d 918; People v. Outten (1958), 13 Ill.2d 21, 23, 147 N.E.2d 284.) Here, despite the possibility raised by defendant's testimony that the heroin had been 'planted', there is no evidence of entrapment and thus no basis for the giving of an instruction relating to the specific defense. Accordingly, and in view of the fact that this is not a case where the proof was so unsatisfactory as to justify entertainment of a reasonable doubt of guilt, we find no error in refusing the instruction. People v. Fleming (1971), 50 Ill.2d 141, 144, 277 N.E.2d 872; see People v. Glass (1959), 16 Ill.2d 595, 597, 158 N.E.2d 639; (compare, People v. Strong (1961), 21 Ill.2d 320, 325, 172 N.E.2d 765; People v. Dollen (1972), 53 Ill.2d 280, 284--285, 290 N.E.2d 879).

The defendant next claims that the warrantless search of his home which resulted in the additional heroin being found in the coloring book on the interior stairway was constitutionally impermissible and that the subsequent admission of the evidence over objection was reversible error. We do not agree. Based upon the information received from Walton when he returned to the unmarked police car, officers Such and Beatus had probable cause to enter the defendant's residence (See Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 107--5(d)), and to make the subsequent arrest. (People v. Barbee (1966), 35 Ill.2d 407, 411, 220 N.E.2d 401; People v. Carter (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d 572, 576--577, 270 N.E.2d 603.) Once in the house, the coloring book, the very object Walton had described as the repository of the heroin, was in plain view and was therefore properly seized without the necessity of a search warrant. See People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 310--311, 278 N.E.2d 756; People v. Wright (1968), 41 Ill.2d 170, 174--175, 242 N.E.2d 180; People v. Barbee, 35 Ill.2d 407, 412, 220 N.E.2d 401; People v. Scott (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 620, 625, 301 N.E.2d 118.

Shortly after the coloring book was seized defendant's home was searched pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial officer and the marked currency described in the warrant was found in the defendant's bathroom. Defendant claims, however, that the search warrant was not valid. He argues that the warrant was applied for, issued and executed on July 18th, 1972, but that it recited facts relied upon to show probable cause occurring with the arrest of defendant on 'June 18th, 1972'. There is no evidence in the record, however, indicating cating any prior sale of heroin on June 18th; rather, the proof conclusively shows that the sale in question was made on ...