People v. Holt
| Decision Date | 27 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 35974,35974 |
| Citation | 28 Ill.2d 30,190 N.E.2d 797 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Sylvester HOLT, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Fred S. Posner, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
The defendant, Sylvester Holt, was found guilty by a jury in the criminal court of Cook County of possession of narcotics and was sentenced to a term in the penitentiary of 6 to 10 years. We have issued a writ of error to review his conviction.
Defendant contends that his possession of narcotics was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that improper testimony of police officers and remarks of the prosecutor were prejudicial and deprived him of a fair trial.
Defendant was charged with possession of narcotic drugs on October 29, 1959, by having at that time under his control a quantity of heroin contrary to the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. Two police officers of Chicago testified that they went to 4426 South Greenwood in Chicago with a search warrant for the purpose of searching the apartment premises believed to be under the control of defendant. They were permitted entrance into the apartment by the landlady after informing her that they had a search warrant for Sylvester Holt. The officers testified she informed them that he lived in the building and she would take them to his apartment. Access to the apartment was gained by use of a pass key and the officers found in two different places the white powder which tests revealed to be heroin. They further testified to finding men's clothing in the apartment and also certain identifying papers in various articles of this clothing bearing defendant's name. About an hour later the defendant came to this apartment and used a key for the purpose of entering. The officers testified that the defendant when confronted with the discovery of the white powder by the police, stated to them that he knew it was heroin and that it belonged to him.
One of the officers testified that when he showed the search warrant to defendant, defendant stated that he had been living in the apartment for about three weeks and shared it with his girl friend, Gloria Washington.
Defendant denied he was the person who rented the apartment and denied any control over it. He testified that his girl friend was the tenant and she paid the rent; that he came to visit her on a few occasions. None of the articles of men's clothing found there were his, nor were any of his identification papers there. The police obtained his social security card from his wallet when they searched him at the apartment. Holt further denied making any statement to the police to the effect that he admitted the heroin was his or that he had been living in the apartment for three weeks prior to the police search. He produced a lease showing that he was a tenant at 4644 South Ellis, and one David Giles testified that defendant, Mr. Giles and his wife shared an apartment at that address. Neither Gloria Washington nor the landlady testified.
It is undisputed that heroin was found in the Greenwood apartment and that defendant had access to that apartment. There is defendant's admission that he lived in the apartment and that the narcotics were his. Defendant also denied any knowledge of the use of narcotics by Gloria Washington, the only other person who was shown to have access to the apartment.
We have held that the actual physical personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Billings
...had been carrying a gun. We agree that under the circumstances this testimony constituted objectionable hearsay. (People v. Holt (1963), 28 Ill.2d 30, 190 N.E.2d 797; People v. Thompson (1970), 128 Ill.App.2d 420, 263 N.E.2d 124.) However, where in light of the entire record it is apparent ......
-
People v. Moore
... ... Durkin, 330 Ill. 394, 161 N.E. 739.) Since possession of the revolver and shoulder holster were proper areas of testimony, and the items were not admitted into evidence ... Page 303 ... and the jury was instructed to disregard them, we find no reversible error. (People v. Holt, 28 Ill.2d 30, 190 N.E.2d 797; People v. Carvin, 20 Ill.2d 32, 169 N.E.2d 260; People v. Prohaska, 8 Ill.2d 579, 134 N.E.2d 799.) There is no clear evidence of the weapon actually used in this homicide, although it is clear that it was a shotgun. We have consistently held that a weapon found upon ... ...
-
People v. Plair
... ... It is contended that the trial court erred in permitting the police officers to testify to the woman's statements indicating that the defendant had been carrying a gun. We agree that under the circumstances this testimony constituted objectionable hearsay. (People v. Holt (1963), 28 Ill.2d 30, 190 N.E.2d 797; People v. Thompson (1970), 128 Ill.App.2d 420, 263 N.E.2d 124.) However, where in light of the entire record it is apparent that hearsay testimony was not prejudicial, any error committed in its reception does not warrant reversal. (People v. Pelkola (1960), ... ...
-
People v. Bell
... ... Whether the [53 Ill.2d 127] defendant had the requisite knowledge and possession of the narcotics is a question of fact for the jury to determine. The record does not warrant our setting aside the jury's findings. People v. Holt (1963), 28 Ill.2d 30, 33, 190 N.E.2d 797 ... The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence on cross-examination of a police officer wherein the officer was asked why he did not serve the search warrant on the defendant's mother, the person to ... ...