People v. Mann
| Decision Date | 01 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 36865,36865 |
| Citation | 27 Ill.2d 135,188 N.E.2d 665 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. David MANN, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Howard T. Savage, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago for defendant in error.
At a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County, David Mann, defendant, was convicted of unlawfully selling narcotic drugs and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 10 nor more than 25 years. Upon writ of error he contends that he was not proved guilty of the crime charged and that improper evidence was presented by the People both at time of trial and upon hearing in aggravation or mitigation.
The record indicates that about noon on August 17, 1960, Joseph M. Arpaio, a United States Treasury agent, met one Thomas Durkin at the northwest corner of Carroll and Damen streets in Chicago and there entered an automobile occupied by the latter. After a brief conversation, Arpaio gave Durkin $100 in currency and then watched as Durkin left the vehicle and walked to the east side of Damen Street where defendant was waiting. According to Arpaio, there was an exchange of hands between the men after which Durkin returned across the street to his automobile and handed Arpaio a small package that he carried clenched in his hand. Upon opening the package it was found to contain a white powder which by later analysis proved to be mixture of heroin and dormin, the latter being a non-narcotic substance.
Donald Schnettler, another Treasury agent, testified that, while standing at the southeast corner of Carroll and Damen streets, he observed the meeting of Durkin and defendant, witnessed their exchange of hands which resembled a handshake, and ten saw Durkin walk back across the street to where Arpaio was waiting.
James J. Riordan, a Chicago police lieutenant, was parked a short distance from the meeting place, and as defendant left in his automobile, Riordan followed him to a Madison Street address but made no arrest until August 22, 1960, at which time, according to the witness, defendant admitted the meeting with Durking but contended the substance delivered by him was only dormin.
Louis Garippo, an assistant State's Attorney, also testified that during a conversation following the arrest, defendant admitted that Durkin had called him on the morning of August 17 and told him 'somebody from up north wanted to cop some stuff,' that he met Durkin later the same day near the corner of Carroll and Damen streets and received from him $100, but that the package which he then delivered to Durkin contained only dormin. No evidence whatsoever was offered upon behalf of the defendant.
The defendant contends that the evidence, at most, shows only a sale of narcotics to Durkin and not to Arpaio as charged in the indictment. With this we cannot agree. Although there was no proof that defendant knew the actual identity of the ultimate recipient, there was evidence that Durkin had informed him prior to their meeting that the narcotics were being purchased by 'somebody from up north.' As we recently pointed out in People v. Alexander, 21 Ill.2d 347, 172...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Younger v. Superior Court
...... (See Robinson v. United States, supra, 32 F.2d at p. 510; United States v. Callanan (4th Cir. 1971) 450 F.2d 145, 150; United States v. Cerone (7th Cir. 1971) 452 F.2d 274, 288; People v. Mann (1963) 27 Ill.2d 135, 188 N.E.2d 665, 667; People v. Spencer (1973) 182 Colo. 189, 512 P.2d 260, 263; Tomlin v. State (1965) 81 Nev. 620, 407 P.2d 1020, 1022; State v. Fackrell (1954) 44 Wash.2d 874, 271 P.2d 679, 680; Lukas v. State (1927) 194 Wis. 387, 216 N.W. 483, 484-485; see Annot., Supra, 54 ......
-
People v. La Pointe
......Popescue, (345 Ill. 142, 177 N.E. 739), the judge should know something of the life, family, occupation and record of the person about to be sentenced.' People v. McWilliams, 348 Ill. 333 at 336 (, 180 N.E. 832.) See also People v. Popescue, 345 Ill. 142 (, 177 N.E. 739); People v. Mann, 27 Ill.2d 135 (, 188 N.E.2d 665); Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, chap. 38, par. 1-7(g)." . In People v. Kelley (1970), 44 Ill.2d 315, 318, 255 N.E.2d 390, Adkins was cited with approval as authority for the admission at a sentencing hearing of testimony as to misconduct which had not resulted ......
-
People v. Devin, 53175
...(1981), 88 Ill.2d 482, 59 Ill.Dec. 59, 431 N.E.2d 344; People v. Crews (1967), 38 Ill.2d 331, 231 N.E.2d 451; People v. Mann (1963), 27 Ill.2d 135, 188 N.E.2d 665; People v. O'Neil (1960) 18 Ill.2d 461, 165 N.E.2d 319; People v. Riley (1941), 376 Ill. 364, 33 N.E.2d 872, cert. denied (1941)......
-
People v. Williams
......Bradford (1961), 23 Ill.2d 30, 34, 177 N.E.2d 139 (informal presentation of defendant's out-of-State crimes through testimony of assistant State's Attorney was not prejudicial); People v. Mann (1963), 27 Ill.2d 135, 139, 188 N.E.2d 665 (although introduction of defendant's prior drug dealings was through testimony of assistant State's Attorney, court is not bound by usual rules of evidence[149 Ill.2d 487] and "may search anywhere within reasonable bounds for other facts which tend to ......