People v. Green
| Decision Date | 01 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37198,37198 |
| Citation | 27 Ill.2d 39,187 N.E.2d 708 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Oscar GREEN, Plaintiff in Error. |
James E. Noland, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
Oscar Green and James Williams were tried together in the criminal court of Cook County upon an indictment that charged them, in three separate counts , with selling, possessing and dispensing narcotic drugs. A jury found them guilty 'in manner and form as charged in the indictment' and they were each sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than ten years nor more than ten years and a day.
This writ of error is prosecuted by Oscar Green. He contends that the evidence did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that prejudicial evidence was erroneously admitted against him, that the argument of the prosecutor was improper and that the form of guilty verdict submitted to the jury was erroneous.
Leon Morris testified that on July 13, 1959, he was a Federal narcotics agent, and that about 6:30 P.M. on that date, he went to the apartment of a government informer. An hour or so thereafter, Green and Williams came to the apartment. The informer told them that Morris was interested in buying narcotics. Williams offered to sell him 26 bags for $100. Morris agreed, although he protested that the price was too high. Williams then took the bags from Green, gave them to Morris is return for $100 in marked money, and handed the money to Green who counted and pocketed it. Morris testified that Green and Williams agreed to furnish an additional quantity the following week, but that they failed to appear at the designated time. He took the bags that had been delivered to him to the Federal laboratory where their contents were analyzed and found to contain heroin. Green and Williams were separately arrested on August 17, 1959.
Agent Morris, who identified Green and Williams at the trial, testified that he had conversed with them in a well lighted room for a period of 10 to 12 minutes. Two other Federal agents testified that they saw them enter the apartment building at the time in question, and leave after about 10 minutes. These agents also positively identified the two men at the trial. Green directs our attention to the fact that the informer was not called as a witness, but we have held, in similar circumstances, that the prosecution was not obligated to call the informer as a witness. (People v. Aldridge, 19 Ill.2d 176, 180, 166 N.E.2d 563.) The jury was not required to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and to accept that of Green and Williams, both of whom denied the entire occurrence. The record sustains the jury's conclusion that the guilt of Oscar Green was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
His next contention, that prejudicial evidence was erroneously admitted against him, refers to the testimony of Morris as to a statement made to him by Williams, the co-defendant, after he had been arrested. Morris testified: 'James Williams said to me, 'If you will tell the truth, you will know that I don't have any narcotics in my possession.' He said, 'Now, if you will tell the truth again, you know that Oscar Green gave you those narcotics. " This testimony was admitted over Green's objection, and the judge instructed the jury to disregard it insofar as Green was concerned. In addition, the prosecution stated that it was offered only as to the defendant Williams.
In cases in which one of several co-defendants has been tried alone, after a motion for severance was allowed, the admission of this kind of hearsay evidence has been held to be reversible error. (People v. Smuk, 12 Ill.2d 360, 146 N.E.2d 32; People v. Clark, 17 Ill.2d 486, 162 N.E.2d 413.) In this case, however, both Green and Williams were advised upon their arraignment that the prosecution proposed to use in evidence statements that they had made, and neither of them moved for a severance. In such a situation, the admission or confession of one defendant is received in evidence, even though it implicates a co-defendant, under an instruction to the jury that the evidence is to be considered only as to the defendant who made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cardona
...guilt as charged in the indictment, nor does it in any other way indicate that it is a finding on each count. (Compare People v. Green (1963), 27 Ill.2d 39, 187 N.E.2d 708.) The verdict is, therefore, not sufficient for the trial court to ascertain with reasonable certainty that the jury fo......
-
People v. Jones
...two counts of murder. Furthermore, the record indicates the Forms of Verdict were given without objection. In People v. Green, 27 Ill.2d 39, 187 N.E.2d 708, at 710 (1963), the Court held, that the defendant could not complain of an alleged error in submitting a general verdict when the 'def......
-
People v. Mathes
...to conclude that in the light of all the evidence the prosecutor's remark influenced the verdict of the jury. See People v. Green (1963), 27 Ill.2d 39, 187 N.E.2d 708. With respect to defendant's claim of error regarding the imposition of a consecutive sentence, our subsequent holding in th......
-
People v. Jones
...form submitted by the defendants, that being sufficient reason, in the absence of plain error, to waive the issue. People v. Green (1963), 27 Ill.2d 39, 44, 187 N.E.2d 708. The defendants next argue that their convictions must be reversed because the jury was improperly instructed in that t......