Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Hicks

FEBRUARY 5, 1974.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

WILLIE HICKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. LAWRENCE I. GENESEN, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE STAMOS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Defendant, Willie Hicks, was convicted following a bench trial on March 9, 1972, of possession of heroin on August 4, 1971, and placed on two years probation on condition that he serve the first 90 days in the House of Correction. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 22-3.) On appeal, he argues the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he "possessed" heroin or that the substance was, in fact, heroin.

When the case was called for trial on March 9, 1972, after defendant had indicated his intention to move to suppress the evidence, the State's Attorney stated: "And also there will be a stipulation later on should the case go to trial as to what the lab report resolved in this matter." The assistant State's Attorney was tendered to the defendant's attorney the inventory slip on the case, bearing Inventory No. 881224. After a hearing, the motion to suppress was denied.

At the trial, Chicago police officer August Caporusso, called by the State, testified: On August 4, 1971, he proceeded to 2548 W. Warren to execute a search warrant for those premises and for the defendant, Willie Hicks. He observed the defendant walk out of the front door of the apartment, down the stairs and to an automobile parked in an empty lot immediately west of the building. The automobile in which the officer was riding (in the back seat behind the driver) pulled up to the right of and parallel with defendant's automobile, within six feet of defendant's automobile. Defendant was seated in the right front, i.e., passenger's side, of his vehicle with the door open. He observed the defendant with his hand in the vehicle's heater vent which was located directly in front of defendant. When he was approximately three feet away from defendant's vehicle, the officer observed defendant remove his hand from the heater vent and he then observed in the heater vent a plastic bag containing tinfoil packets, which he removed from the heater vent. He placed defendant under arrest and advised him of his constitutional rights. The small, clear, plastic bag contained 33 tinfoil packets which in turn contained white powder. When asked if he had "occasion to inventory the same white powder substance," the officer answered, "Yes." It was filed under Inventory No. 881224 at the Chicago Police Department. He then took the bag to the desk of the crime laboratory and was there given the number 71100190CY. The following colloquy then occurred:

"MR. KAYMAN (Assistant State's Attorney): At this time, your Honor, there was a stipulation to the lab report between counsel for the defendant, Mrs. Hubbard and myself, assistant State's Attorney, PAUL KAYMAN or Edward V. Hanrahan through his assistant, Paul Kayman, that the lab report dated August 5, 1971 revealing the number 71-100190C-Y contains a total estimated weight of 6.5 grams of diacetylmorphine commonly referred to as heroin and that this is the same white powder substance so analyzed by Charles VanDruck, a duly qualified chemist.

THE COURT: So stipulated?

MRS. HUBBARD (Defense attorney): So stipulated.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. KAYMAN:

Q. The events that you testified to occurred in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois?

A. Yes, they did.

THE COURT: State rests?

MR. KAYMAN: Yes, your ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.