People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 22 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 38268,41053,s. 38268 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. William SMITH et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John H. Stamos, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Robert B. Rosen, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
Defendants, William Smith and Austin Carter, were indicted for the unlawful sale of narcotic drugs. After a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, they were found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than 10 years nor more than 10 years and one day. On this review, they contend that they were not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and allege certain violations of their constitutional rights.
On July 3, 1963, at approximately 1:00 A.M., James Henry, a confessed narcotics addict, met with officers Clemmie Paschal and Louis Washington of the Chicago Police Department in the vicinity of Madison and Leavitt streets. Henry, who was known to the officers as a narcotics addict and informer, was searched and then offered his services to procure narcotics. He was given twelve dollars in recorded currency and two quarters inscribed with Paschal's initials. He left the police officers and proceeded to a restaurant on the southeast corner of Madison and Leavitt. Upon entering the restaurant, Henry approached Carter who allegedly agreed to sell him narcotics.
Henry testified that he and Carter were joined by William Smith, the other defendant, and that the three of them left the restaurant and walked south on Leavitt to Monroe Street. At Monroe the three proceeded west to Oakley Boulevard. At this point in the evidence several contradictions appear. Henry testified that Smith left the group at the corner of Monroe and Oakley and rejoined them later on in front of a white house on Oakley near Madison. Paschal testified that he had observed the trio from his vantage point almost a block away. He stated, contrary to Henry, that Smith had left them, gone into a gangway and then rejoined Carter and Henry, who were waiting while the three were still on Monroe, and not on Oakley, as Henry testified.
Henry testified that Smith gave the narcotics to Carter, who in turn gave the narcotics to him. Henry further stated that after the transaction, he returned to the squad car and there met Paschal and Washington and gave them the narcotics. Paschal, however, testified that only he and Henry and not Washington were present at the car when Henry gave him the narcotics.
Some time after receiving the narcotics, Washington and Paschal entered a tavern at 22 West Madison and placed both defendants under arrest. None of the previously recorded or marked money was on Smith's person. Paschal stated that he found two of the marked quarters on Carter. The previously marked currency was recovered from the cash box of the tavern. Carter denied the possession of the quarters, and both defendants denied that they were parties to the alleged sale of narcotics.
After the defendants were convicted and sentenced, Carter alone filed a post-conviction petition, and, after a hearing, the court denied the petition. The defendant Carter appeals from that judgment and the causes are consolidated here.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They rely heavily upon the fact that Henry was a narcotics addict and that therefore his testimony as the prosecution's principal witness was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief as a matter of law. The fact that a witness is a narcotics addict has a bearing upon his credibility; however, it does not follow that his testimony must necessarily be disbelieved, especially when corroborated by other witnesses. (People v. Hamby, 6 Ill.2d 559, 129 N.E.2d 746.) Paschal was a witness to the transaction involved and his testimony substantially corroborated that of Henry in regard to the sale of the narcotics and the identity of the two defendants. There are conflicts in the testimony of Henry and Paschal, but the determination of such conflicts is a function of the trial court. (People v. Wysocki, 20 Ill.2d 62, 169 N.E.2d 264.) In our opinion, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court.
Defendants argue that even if guilt beyond a reasonable doubt were established by the evidence, it was done in violation of their right to a fair trial. They allege that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Othman
...by other evidence. People v. Moss , 205 Ill. 2d 139, 165-66, 275 Ill.Dec. 444, 792 N.E.2d 1217 (2001) ; People v. Smith , 41 Ill. 2d 158, 161, 242 N.E.2d 198 (1968) ; People v. Larry , 30 Ill. 2d 533, 536, 198 N.E.2d 334 (1964) ; People v. Ingram , 91 Ill. App. 3d 1074, 1078, 47 Ill.Dec. 56......
-
People v. Wilson
...the day before the escape. (People v. Sheridan (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 765, 15 Ill.Dec. 323, 373 N.E.2d 669; see also People v. Smith (1968), 41 Ill.2d 158, 242 N.E.2d 198.) As such, we cannot say that Coleman's testimony was so patently incredible as to be rendered III. IMPROPER REMARKS IN C......
-
People v. Cornille
... ... 937, 96 S.Ct. 297, 46 L.Ed.2d 270 ... The People also argue that People v. Frank (1971), 48 Ill.2d 500, 506, 272 N.E.2d 25, supports a holding that only knowing ... Page 864 ... [69 Ill.Dec. 952] use of false testimony violates due process. (See also People v. Smith (1968), 41 Ill.2d 158, 163, 242 N.E.2d 198, cert. denied (1969), 396 U.S. 852, 90 S.Ct. 111, 24 L.Ed.2d 101.) In Frank the defendant alleged in a petition for post-conviction relief that due process was violated when a police informer testified falsely concerning his identity and his record of ... ...
-
People v. Willis
...to impeach a witness' ability to observe, or narcotics addiction to undermine a witness' credibility (see People v. Smith (1968), 41 Ill.2d 158, 161, 242 N.E.2d 198, 200). (See generally 6 L. Pieczynski, Illinois Practice § 22.64, at 48 (1989); R. Hunter, Trial Handbook for Illinois Lawyers......