APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. DANIEL
J. RYAN, Judge, presiding.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE LORENZ DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of possession of both cannabis and a controlled substance in violation of section 4(d) of the Cannabis Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 56 1/2, par. 704(d)) and sections 208(c)(1) and 402(b) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 56 1/2, pars. 1208(c)(1), 1402(b)) and placed on three years' probation. On appeal, he contends he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of either actual or constructive possession of a prohibited substance.
At trial the following pertinent evidence was adduced.
Prior to any testimony, defendant stipulated as follows:
"* * * as to the chain of evidence and the lab report regarding the substances found in this case which the State would seek to introduce into evidence.
* * * that on February 10, 1974, Officers West and Richler of the Gang Crimes South, Investigation Unit of the Chicago Police Department, submitted and carried to the Chicago Police Department Crime Laboratory the following exhibits: a clear bag containing crushed green plants, total weight being 136.11 grams, and also nine blue and orange capsules, total weight 2.7 grams; that the exhibits were tested by George J. Halko, who is a chemist with the Chicago Police Department Crime Laboratory, and that he found Exhibit No. 1 to contain cannabis sativa, commonly known as marijuana, and Exhibit No. 2 to contain a derivate of barbituric "acid, and that these exhibits were then given back to Officer West for the chain of custody."
Defendant also stipulated that he and his wife were joint tenants of the apartment in question.
He is a Chicago police officer. At about 9:30 p.m. on February 9, 1974, he and several other officers went to an apartment at 8600 South Muskegon, Chicago, armed with a search warrant for narcotics. They knocked on the door and announced their office. From inside the apartment they smelled marijuana and heard people running. They then forced open the side door leading into the kitchen. There, they were confronted by defendant holding a dog. Defendant yelled, "Stand back; it bites," and then released the dog. An officer fired at the dog and it ran out of the apartment.
Defendant and six other occupants were assembled in the living and dining rooms and searched. In the top pocket of defendant's denim jacket, they found an amount of U.S. currency and a plastic bag containing crushed green plant. They informed defendant he was under arrest and continued their search of the premises. In the bedroom dresser they found a quantity of "additional marijuana." They also found guns "secreted up under the dresser" and some pills in a bag of dog food in the pantry off the kitchen. At this point defendant asked, "What am I under arrest for?" After he was told the specific charges and advised of his rights defendant declared, "All this stuff in here is mine. It doesn't belong to any of the other people." He was taken to the district station and the narcotics, which subsequently became the subject of the above stipulation, were taken to the crime lab.
On cross-examination, he identified defense exhibit number one as being a jacket "similar" to the jacket that defendant wore at the time of his arrest. He stated that the weapons found were not registered to defendant and acknowledged that he found no pills on defendant's person. When he found the pills in the kitchen pantry, defendant was in the dining room with the other occupants. That is where defendant said that the "stuff" belonged to him.