People v. Luckett
| Citation | 24 Ill.2d 550,182 N.E.2d 696 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36002,36002 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Jack LUCKETT, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Julian J. Frazin, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the illegal sale of narcotics and was sentenced to the penitentiary for from 10 to 20 years. His sole contention on this writ of error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.
Three witnesses testified for the People. The first, Eugene Nicoletti, a police officer assigned to the narcotics division, testified that he met defendant in a tavern on December 9, 1959, and told him he wanted 'to cop some H,' meaning that he wanted to get some heroin. Defendant stated that he would get some for him, but that it would cost him $8. Nicoletti gave defendant the money. Defendant left, returned about half an hour later and told Nicoletti to follow him to the men's room. There defendant unrolled his left sock and took out a small package, which he handed to Nicoletti.
Nicoletti testified that he then left the tavern and performed a field test on the contents of the package, which indicated the presence of a derivative of opium. He inventoried the narcotics and brought them to the crime laboratory at the detective bureau. The witness was shown several exhibits, of which he identified People's exhibit 4 as the tinfoil package given him by the defendant. He also identified People's exhibit 2 as the envelope into which he had placed the tinfoil package when he gave it to the crime laboratory. He recognized his handwriting and signature on exhibit 2, but exhibit 4 bore no identifying marks made by the witness.
Charles Vondrak, a police sergeant assigned to the chemistry section of the crime laboratory, testified that he had subjected People's exhibit 4 to various chemical tests, and that it was his opinion, based upon a reasonable chemical certainty, that it contained heroin.
The final witness for the State was police officer Dan Borkovich. He testified that on the afternoon of December 10, 1959, he and officer Kinzle saw Nicoletti walking with the defendant toward their squad car and that the defendant was placed under arrest. He further testified that, while in custody shortly after the arrest, defendant was asked by officer Kinzle, in the presence of Nicoletti and Borkovich, if he remembered selling narcotics to Nicoletti, and that the defendant said that he had but did not think that he was a policeman.
Defendant testified in his own behalf. He denied having seen Nicoletti on December 9, 1959, the date of the alleged sale, and denied ever having sold or given him any narcotic drug. He testified that on December 10, 1959, the date of his arrest, he was approached by Nicoletti, who told him he wanted to make a buy. When defendant said he had nothing to sell, Nicoletti left, but returned a short time later with a tin foil or cellophane bag in his hand, and asked defendant if he wanted some, and, when defendant answered in the affirmative, told him to follow him down the street. The defendant followed Nicoletti and was arrested by the police. Nicoletti took the stand in rebuttal and controverted defendant's account of the events in connection with the arrest.
Defendant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict is two-fold. First, he contends that the evidence that he made any sale is unsatisfactory. Second, he contends that, assuming he did deliver a package to Nicoletti, there is insufficient evidence that the package contained a narcotic,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baynes
...75 Ill.2d 1, 6, 25 Ill.Dec. 675, 387 N.E.2d 331; People v. Arnold (1963), 27 Ill.2d 294, 297, 189 N.E.2d 241; People v. Luckett (1962), 24 Ill.2d 550, 554, 182 N.E.2d 696.) If the error is not raised in a post-trial motion it is waived on appeal. (People v. Tannenbaum (1980), 82 Ill.2d 177,......
-
People v. Columbo
... ... 22 People v. Wilkerson (1981), 87 Ill.2d 151, 57 Ill.Dec. 628, 429 N.E.2d 526; People v. Galloway (1974), 59 Ill.2d 158, 319 N.E.2d 498; People v. Martin (1974), 56 Ill.2d 322, 307 N.E.2d 388; People v. McKinney (1964), 31 Ill.2d 246, 201 N.E.2d 431; People v. Luckett (1962), 24 ... ...
-
People v. Canada
... ... People v. Greer, 28 Ill.2d 107, 111, 190 N.E.2d 742; People v. Brengettsy, 25 Ill.2d 228, 231, 184 N.E.2d 849; People v. Luckett, 24 Ill.2d 550, 553, 180 N.E.2d 696 ... Defendant argues at length that the State's failure to introduce into evidence deceased's trousers raises the presumption that such evidence would have been disadvantageous to the State's case. It is defendant's position that examination of ... ...
-
People v. Lenair
... ... Defendant's counsel replied: 'No objection, Your Honor.' Having failed to object, defendant cannot now urge that it was error to admit the gun in evidence. People v. Trefonas, 9 Ill.2d 92, 136 N.E.2d 817; People v. Luckett, 24 Ill.2d 550, 182 N.E.2d 696; People v. McNeil, 99 Ill.App.2d 273, 240 N.E.2d 721 ... Finally, defendant contends that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In support of this contention defendant points to his testimony that on June 25, 1967 he left Chicago and ... ...