People v. Nettles
| Decision Date | 30 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35840,35840 |
| Citation | 178 N.E.2d 361,23 Ill.2d 306 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Earle E. NETTLES, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
David V. Kahn and Richard Z. Kabaker, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and Rudolph L. Janega Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
The defendant, Earle E. Nettles, was found guilty of the unlawful possession of narcotic drugs after a trial before a judge, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than five years. Upon this writ of error he urges that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge and possession of the narcotics.
On March 25, 1959, Federal and local narcotics officials executed a search warrant in a Chicago apartment. Defendant and Juanita Allen lived there as man and wife. They, along with two other men, were in the apartment at the time of the raid. The search revealed thirty small packages of narcotics in a paper bag behind the entrance door. Defendant testified that he did not rent the apartment, but merely kept his clothes there. He indicated that the narcotics were not his, that he did not know how they got into the apartment, and that he thought the police had 'planted' them or that they belonged to someone else in the apartment.
This again presents a situation in which narcotics are found in an apartment and a person occupying the premises is prosecuted for their unlawful possession. (See e. g., People v. Embry, 20 Ill.2d 331, 169 N.E.2d 767; People v. Mack, 12 Ill.2d 151, 145 N.E.2d 609.) In order to support a conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics, the People must establish knowledge on the part of defendant of the presence of narcotics and must also establish that the narcotics were in the immediate and exclusive control of defendant. People v. Embry, 20 Ill.2d 331, 169 N.E.2d 767; People v. Smith, 20 Ill.2d 345, 169 N.E.2d 777; People v. Matthews, 18 Ill.2d 164, 163 N.E.2d 469; People v. Mack, 12 Ill.2d 151, 145 N.E.2d 609.
In People v. Mack, 12 Ill.2d 151, 145 N.E.2d 609, we held that where narcotics were found in an apartment which had been rented to the defendant, the element of possession was established, in spite of the fact that other persons had access to the apartment. On the issue of knowledge, we said: 'When the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence by which the defendant seeks to disassociate himself from (the) apartment * * * is considered in its entirety and weighed with relation to the circumstances that he paid rent on the apartment * * *, and that he was observed leaving it minutes before the heroin was found, we are satisfied his knowledge of its presence may be fairly inferred.' (12 Ill.2d 151, at page 161, 145 N.E.2d at page 613.) Similarly, possession and knowledge were held to have been established in People v. Embry, 20 Ill.2d 331, 169 N.E.2d 767, where narcotics were found in defendant's apartment when he was present and did not deny ownership even though five other persons were also present.
The underlying principle of the Mack and Embry cases is that where narcotics are found on premises under defendant's control, it may be inferred that the defendant had both knowledge and control of the narcotics. This inference is based largely upon the nature of the commodity and the manner in which its illegal traffic ex conducted. By law the use of narcotics, except for specified medicinal purposes, is rigidly condemned. Because of this illegitimate nature of narcotics, they are sold for exorbitant sums on the black market and are therefore of great value to the person possessing them. Furthermore, since their mere possession may subject such person to severe criminal consequences,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Josephs v. Com., 0423-87-2
...Possession of a controlled drug gives rise to an inference of the defendant's knowledge of its character. See People v. Nettles, 23 Ill.2d 306, 308-09, 178 N.E.2d 361, 363 (1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 853, 82 S.Ct. 939, 8 L.Ed.2d 12 While it is not necessary that the Commonwealth prove ow......
-
State v. Brown
...327 N.Y.S.2d 342, 277 N.E.2d 396 (Ct.App.1971), Cert. den. 405 U.S. 1041, 92 S.Ct. 1315, 31 L.Ed.2d 582 (1972); People v. Nettles, 23 Ill.2d 306, 178 N.E.2d 361 (Sup.Ct.1961), Cert. den. 369 U.S. 853, 82 S.Ct. 939, 8 L.Ed.2d 12 (1962); People v. Robertson, 61 A.D.2d 600, 403 N.Y.S.2d 234 (A......
-
State v. Gilman
...may, in absence of other facts and circumstances, be sufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful possession. People v. Nettles, 23 Ill.2d 306, 178 N.E.2d 361 (1961). The Gilman's exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for a new trial raises the issue......
-
State v. Wiley
... ... The Fourth Amendment as applicable to the States protects the right of the people to be secure in their residences by providing that search warrants shall be obtained upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. Despite ... The basis for this inference has recently been stated in State v. Funk, supra, at 360, quoting from People v. Nettles, 23 Ill.2d 306, 178 N.E.2d 361, 363 (1961). '* * * Human experience teaches that narcotics are rarely, if ever, found unaccountably in a person's ... ...