People v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 29 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42033,42033 |
| Citation | 263 N.E.2d 856,46 Ill.2d 376 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Oliver WILSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert A. Novelle and Patrick T. Driscoll, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
Mr. Justive BURT delivered the opinion of the court:
This case comes before us upon this court's granting of defendant's petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, First District, Second Division. The appellate court (105 Ill.App.2d 216, 245 N.E.2d 57) affirmed a judgment of conviction of the defendant after a jury trial, for the unlawful possession of narcotic drugs, with a sentence to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of not less than seven nor more than ten years.
On March 9, 1965, defendant, Oliver Wilson, was charged in the circuit court of Cook County with both the sale and unlawful possession of narcotics. Two detectives approached Sam Jackson, a known addict, to act as an informant. Sam Jackson was taken to police headquarters at 11th and State where he was searched and handed pre-recorded and fluorescent dusted currency, the type used in a controlled sale. One of the detectives later testified that the informer then called the apartment at 4946 South State Street where defendant answered the telephone, and the listening police officer recognized defendant's voice from prior contacts with defendant. The informer was taken to 4946 South State Street. He entered the building and returned some ten minutes later with a tinfoil package which he handed to the officers. At approximately 1:30 A.M., an hour later, said detectives returned to the apartment building at 4946 South State Street in the company of policewoman Nora Scannell, who was summoned because the informer, Jackson, told them that there were women present in the apartment. The officers first attempted to break into the apartment. Subsequently, defendant, dressed in a T-shirt, pants and socks, opened the door and admitted the officers. They placed defendant under arrest. Others present in the apartment were defendant's sister, Marybell Wilson, her five children, defendant's common-law wife, Nadine Clay, Jackie Miller, a guest at the apartment, and Carolyn Branch. Nadine Clay and Jackie Miller were arrested with defendant and taken to the 11th Street station. Jackie Miller was released at the station and Nadine Clay was discharged at a preliminary hearing.
Policewoman Nora Scannell testified that except for defendant's sister, three of the women in the apartment had track marks on their arms. The apartment was subsequently searched, and a bag containing narcotics was found in a kitchen drawer by one of the detectives.
The trial court allowed the jury to hear testimony regarding the packaged narcotics found in the apartment and the package allegedly obtained from the sale. At the close of the State's case, only the package of narcotics found in the apartment was admitted into evidence. The defense counsel moved for a mistrial contending that evidence regarding the sale of narcotics related to a different transaction than the possession charge, pointing out that the sale occurred a full hour prior to the seizure of the narcotics. The trial court denied the motion.
At the trial the defendant testified that on March 8, 1965, he lived at 7833 Emerald Avenue, and that he and the informer, Sam Jackson, were addicts and had used narcotics in the past. Defendant further testified that when Jackson first entered the apartment, Jackson told him he was sick and needed narcotics and that defendant replied that he had none. The defendant testified that Jackie Miller was the one who gave Jackson the narcotics.
Marybell Wilson, the defendant's sister, testified at the trial that she had leased the apartment from the Chicago Housing Authority with her five children, and that the defendant did not reside there. She further testified that Jackie Miller was spending a few days with her as her guest. Defendant's common-law wife, Nadine Clay, testified that at the time of defendant's arrest he was living with her at 78th Street and Emerald Avenue.
Officer Walsh stated that the window in the bedroom was open and that beneath the window, on the ground level, they recovered another plastic bag, a needle, and syringe and two tinfoil packets which contained white power. Also he testified that the predusted currency was found beneath said window on the ground floor. Officer Walsh testified that defendant's shirt, coat, hat, and shoes were found at that time in the bedroom. Officer Walsh also testified that the fluorescent powder which had been on the marked currency showed up on defendant's hands when put under the fluorescent light at the police station.
During final argument, the prosecutor stated, At that point the defense counsel stated, The prosecutor stated, 'I object to the speech.' The court overruled the objection, and directed the prosecutor to continue. In final argument, the prosecutor also said,
The defendant now contends: (1) It was prejudicial error for the trial court to admit testimony of defendant's involvement in other crimes; (2) it was error for the appellate court to conclude that it was proper for the prosecutor to present to the jury physical evidence of other crimes allegedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gilman
...which an inference may be fairly drawn that he knew of the existence of narcotics at the place where they were found. People v. Wilson, 46 Ill.2d 376, 263 N.E.2d 856 (1970); State v. Faircloth, 181 Neb. 333, 148 N.W.2d 187 Even though, as noted earlier, § 21-29-3(d) carries with it no statu......
-
People v. Enoch
...admitted to establish intent for a completed offense where a defense is premised on lack of intent or knowledge. (People v. Wilson (1970), 46 Ill.2d 376, 381, 263 N.E.2d 856; People v. Fiorito (1952), 413 Ill. 123, 131, 108 N.E.2d 455; see United States v. Silvern (7th Cir.1973), 494 F.2d 3......
-
People v. Wolfbrandt
...The probative value of such evidence outweighs any prejudice therein and accordingly was properly admitted. (See, People v. Wilson (1970), 46 Ill.2d 376, 263 N.E.2d 856; People v. Tranowski (1960), 20 Ill.2d 11, 169 N.E.2d 347.) Furthermore, the jury was given a limiting instruction as to t......
-
People v. Sauer
...control of the narcotics, the evidence of prior sales of narcotics is admissible to refute defendant's contention. People v. Wilson (1970), 46 Ill.2d 376, 381, 263 N.E.2d 856. Here, defendant's entire defense was that he had no knowledge of the drug transactions that occurred. He claimed th......