People v. Polk
| Decision Date | 18 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35125,35125 |
| Citation | 167 N.E.2d 185,19 Ill.2d 310 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Olivia POLK, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Jack W. Rosen and Melvin P. Lewis, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Grenville Beardsley, Atty. Gen., and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis X. Riley, and James J. Glasser, Assistant State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
The defendant, Olivia Polk, prosecutes this writ of error to review a judgment of conviction in the criminal court of Cook County under an indictment charging her with violation of the Uniform Narcotic Durg Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 38, pars. 192.28-1 to 192.28-43. The indictment, in two counts, charged an unlawful sale, and the unlawful dispensing of heroin. Defendant waived a jury and was tried before the court which sentenced her to the Illinois Reformatory for Women for not less than ten years nor more than ten years and one day.
The trial judge indicated doubt as to whether the act was intended to cover sale or dispensation by an agent. However, counsel for defendant concedes that any doubt in this respect has been resolved by our decision in People v. Shannnon, 15 Ill.2d 494, 155 N.E.2d 578.
The only issue in this case is whether the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance, admittedly delivered by defendant, was, in fact, heroin. Defendant urges that the People failed to prove that the substance analyzed as heroin by the chemist was the same substance actually delivered to the policeman by the accused.
The evidence for the People established that on July 29, 1958, Robert Lopez, a police officer of the city of Chicago attached to the narcotics division, received an anonymous telephone call after which he drove with a woman informer, known to him only as Frances, to Maxwell and Peoria Streets where he saw her enter a tavern at 848 Maxwell Street. When she returned to his car, she directed him to drive to Peoria Street and Roosevelt Road. They had beer parked at that location only a short time when defendant entered their automobile. Frances introduced Lopez to the defendant and Lopez stated that he wanted to buy 'an eighth of H.' Defendant replied that she could get it for him and that the price would be $28. The officer handed her currency in that amount which had been previously marked and recorded. She then requested him to drive to Madison and Leavitt Streets, where she got out of the car, and asked them to wait for her.
In a short time, defendant returned to the car, handed Lopez a glassine envelope containing white powder, and ran into a nearby tavern. Lopez followed with officer McDermott, but defendant had gone. The officers then drove to the tavern at 848 Maxwell Street and about an hour later, they saw defendant enter this tavern and arrested her. In her billfold they found a $1 bill which Lopez identified at the trial as part of the money he had given defendant.
The officers then took her to the narcotics bureau where she produced a $5 bill which was also identified by Lopez as part of the purchase money. There McDermott asked her if she knew she had sold narcotics to a police officer and she replied: 'Yes, I did.' She also admitted that the currency was part of the money received from Lopez. When questioned further, she refused to reveal the source of her supply.
At the trial, the People introduced certain exhibits to which defendant offered no objection, including the list containing the denominations and serial numbers of the currency in question; the two bills recovered from defendant; and the glassine envelope, indentified as People's exhibit 3. Lopez testified that this envelope was given to him by defendant; that it contained white powder; and that after receiving the envelope from defendant, he initialed it, inventoried it at the detective bureau, and delivered it to the crime laboratory for analysis. He identified the exhibit by his initials.
It was then stipulated by counsel for both defendant and the People that 'if Daniel Dragel were called to testify and sworn, he would testify that he is a qualified chemist, a member of the Chicago Police Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, and he examined the white powder, the substance that was found in the glassine envelope that was referred to here in the testimony as People's exhibit 3 for identification, that he examined it and found a quantity of white powder, 1.53 grams, that it was subjected to various chemical identity tests and the results are as follows: that that exhibit is diacetyl morphine hydrochloride, commonly referred to as heroin, and that the unconsumed portion of that exhibit is presently here in court.'
In testifying in her own behalf, defendant did not deny the sale or delivery of the glassine envelope to Lopez. She testified that she knew Frances by the name of Jean, and that they were both narcotic addicts. She also related that she met Frances and Lopez at Roosevelt Road and Peoria Street; that Lopez gave her certain currency; and that they took her to Madison and Leavitt Streets where she left the car for a short time; that when she returned to the car she 'threw the stuff' into it and then went away and 'caught a cab;' and that she thought she was procuring the narcotics for Jean.
There is no serious dispute concerning the facts of this case. Defendant argues, however, that without proof of the identity of the person at the laboratory to whom the glassine envelope of white...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Woods
...entering into a stipulation with respect to the evidence. People v. Holloman, 46 Ill.2d 311, 263 N.E.2d 7 (1970); People v. Polk, 19 Ill.2d 310, 315, 167 N.E.2d 185 (1960); see People v. Carpenter, 228 Ill.App.3d 899, 904, 170 Ill.Dec. 928, 593 N.E.2d 817 (1992). A stipulation is an agreeme......
-
People v. Baynes
...objecting to the terms of that agreement. Generally, neither can complain of evidence stipulated into the record (People v. Polk (1960), 19 Ill.2d 310, 315, 167 N.E.2d 185; Kazubowski v. Kazubowski (1968), 93 Ill.App.2d 126, 134, 235 N.E.2d 664.) The admissibility of a polygraph examination......
-
People v. Rucker
...by stipulation, waive the necessity of proof of all or part of the case which the People have alleged against him." People v. Polk, 19 Ill.2d 310, 315, 167 N.E.2d 185 (1960). In narcotics stipulation may also serve to "remove from the case any issue of the expert's qualifications, the chain......
-
People v. Hill
...the expert's testimony. Williams, 200 Ill. App.3d at 516, 146 Ill.Dec. 298, 558 N.E.2d at 269. See also People v. Polk, 19 Ill.2d 310, 315, 167 N.E.2d 185, 188 (1960) (finding that the "stipulation had the effect of eliminating proof which otherwise might have been required"). Additionally,......