Title: People v. Schmalz
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 88471
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: November 22, 2000

Docket No. 88471-Agenda 9-September 2000.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v.
								JENNIFER R. SCHMALZ, Appellee.
Opinion filed November 22, 2000.
	CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON delivered the opinion of the
court:
	As petitioner, the State presents a single issue: whether the
State's evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant, Jennifer R.
Schmalz, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful possession
of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(a) (West 1996)) and drug
paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5(a) (West 1996)). In the circuit
court of Peoria County, following a bench trial the defendant was
found guilty of both offenses and sentenced to six months of
nonreporting supervision. Defendant appealed, raising the sole
issue of whether the State's evidence was insufficient to prove her
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
	On review the parties presented a brief agreed statement of
facts, which we set forth in its entirety: 
			    
"A bench trial was held on December 18, 1997. The
defendant-appellant Jennifer Schmalz was the only
defendant in the trial. At that bench trail [sic], the court
found the following facts:
			     
Peoria Police Officer Baize, Star 794, testified that on August 28, 1997, he went to the address of 1209 North
Underhill, Peoria, Illinois, in response to a call concerning
a problem regarding a parked vehicle. While assisting
other officers regarding that vehicle, he knocked on the
door at that address. The building was a residential,
single-family style house. After speaking with the young
man who answered the door, Officer Baize asked for and
received permission to enter that building and search for
the driver of the vehicle.
			    
Officer Baize entered the house and eventually started
up an interior stairway leading to the upstairs portion of
the house. While going up the stairs, he noticed smoke
and smelled what he believed was burning marijuana.
			    
Upon reaching the top of the stairs, Officer Baize
noticed the smell was stronger. He turned into a bedroom
to which the door was partially open, knocked and
received a response of 'come in.' The bedroom was a very
small room. In that bedroom were four persons (one male
and three females), one of whom was the defendant.
There was considerable smoke and haze, and the smell of
burning marijuana, in that bedroom. The defendant was
sitting on the floor. Two persons were sitting on a couch.
The fourth person was sitting on a bed.
			    
On the floor of that bedroom were items of drug
paraphernalia (3 bongs), as well as three clear plastic bags
containing crushed green plant. The defendant was sitting
less than 12 inches from one of the bags; that bag and a
bong were within the defendant's reach from where she
was sitting. There were also other drug paraphernalia
items elsewhere in the bedroom. A fourth clear plastic bag
was recovered from the couch in the bedroom after one of
two persons sitting on the couch attempted to conceal
something from the police. That person was not the
defendant, and the police never saw defendant on that
couch. The police officer asked 'what are you doing?' and
the defendant stated 'we're having a party'. Officer Baize
did not see any drinks, snacks or food in that bedroom.
The officer then placed under arrest all four individuals in
the bedroom, as well as the young man who had answered
the door. Upon searching the remainder of the residence,
the police found additional paraphernalia in other rooms
of the residence. All five persons were charged with
possession of drug paraphernalia and with misdemeanor
possession of cannabis. The defendant was charged with
possession of not more than 2.5 grams of marijuana under
720 ILCS 550/4(a).
			    
Officer testified that his investigation revealed that the
two males were the sole residents at that building. The
three females, one of whom was the defendant, did not
reside or stay at that location. The officer did not see any
women's clothing in the closets of the residence.
			    
Officer Baize testified that no marijuana or
paraphernalia was recovered from the person of the
defendant, or from any property, such as a purse or jacket,
of the defendant. He did not see the defendant touch any
marijuana or paraphernalia. The only room of the
residence in which he saw the defendant (other than the
rooms through which he escorted her after her arrest) was
the bedroom in which he first saw her. He never saw her
in, or exiting from, any of the other rooms from which
drug paraphernalia items were recovered. 
			    
Officer Baize did not see who placed any of the
paraphernalia or marijuana at the any [sic] of the places
from which it was recovered, including the bedroom in
which he saw the defendant sitting on the floor.
			    
The parties stipulated that if called to testify, Jennie R.
Hahn would testify as follows: as to her education,
training, experience, credentials and qualifications in the
field of forensic chemistry; that she is employed as a
forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police; that on
September 11, 1997, she received from the Peoria Police
Department four plastic bags containing crushed green
plant; she weighed the contents of all four bags, and all of
those contents weighed 6.8 grams; she tested those
contents, and the contents tested positive for the presence
of cannabis. The parties also stipulated to the chain of
custody of the paraphernalia and marijuana.
			    
The prosecution then rested. No exhibits were offered
or admitted into evidence. A defense motion for acquittal
was denied. The defense then rested without presenting
any evidence. After argument, Judge Stuart P. Borden
found the defendant guilty of possession of drug
paraphernalia and possession of cannabis (not more than
2.5 grams) and sentenced her to six (6) months non-reporting supervision, with the only conditions being
payment of a $750.00 fine and $206 in costs (C. 19, 21).
			On January 12, 1998, the defendant filed a Post-Trial
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or, alternatively,
Motion for a New Trial (C. 22, 23, 25). This motion was
heard and denied on January 30, 1998 (C. 26). Notice of
Appeal was filed that same day (C. 27)." 
	In People v. Schmalz, No. 3-98-0097 (1998) (unpublished
order under Supreme Court Rule 23), the appellate court
determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant's
unlawful possession, an essential element of both of the offenses,
and accordingly reversed the judgment of the circuit court. In that
disposition the appellate court concluded that defendant was not
in actual possession of any cannabis or drug paraphernalia, having
merely been seated in close proximity to contraband but not
having been observed smoking or touching it. The appellate court
concluded as well that the evidence failed to establish defendant's
constructive possession of the contraband within her reach, where
she was not in control of the premises, there being no evidence
indicating that she was more than a mere visitor to the apartment
or that she had ever exercised control over the premises.
	This court denied the State's petition for leave to appeal (183 Ill. 2d 589 (1999) (order upon denial of leave to appeal)), but in
the exercise of our supervisory authority, directed the appellate
court to vacate its order reversing the judgment of the trial court
and to review the instant case in accordance with our decision in
People v. Adams, 161 Ill. 2d 333 (1994). 
	On remand, the appellate court revisited the cause to
determine whether the circuit court had erred in its conclusion that
the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
was guilty of unlawful possession of cannabis and drug
paraphernalia. The appellate court answered in the negative the
question whether the State had met its burden of establishing that
defendant was guilty of both offenses because she either was in
constructive possession of the contraband or was accountable for
the actions of those in her company. Accordingly, the appellate
court reversed the judgment of the trial court entered upon
defendant's convictions. 307 Ill. App. 3d 699. We allowed the
State's petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 315 (177 Ill. 2d R. 315). The State argues that the State's
evidence supports a finding of actual possession and was,
therefore, sufficient to prove defendant guilty of both offenses. We
agree. 
	A criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence
is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the defendant. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). When this court is presented with a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not the function of this court
to retry the defendant. People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 541
(1999); Collins, 106 Ill. 2d  at 261. " '[T]he relevant question is
whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt' ";
" '[o]nce a defendant has been found guilty of the crime charged,
the factfinder's role as weigher of the evidence is preserved
through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review all of the
evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the
prosecution.' "  (Emphasis in original.) Collins, 106 Ill. 2d  at 261,
quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560,
573, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). The requirement that a
defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt does not
mean that inferences flowing from the evidence should be
disregarded. People v. Frieberg, 147 Ill. 2d 326, 361-62 (1992). 	The Cannabis Control Act provides in part that "[i]t is
unlawful for any person knowingly to possess cannabis" (720
ILCS 550/4 (West 1996)); the Drug Paraphernalia Control Act
provides in part that "[a] person who knowingly possesses an item
of drug paraphernalia with the intent to use it in ingesting,
inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis or a controlled
substance into the human body, or in preparing cannabis or a
controlled substance for that use, is guilty of a Class A
misdemeanor" (720 ILCS 600/3.5(a) (West 1996)). To sustain a
charge of unlawful possession of either cannabis or drug
paraphernalia, the State must prove that the defendant had
knowledge of the presence of the cannabis or drug paraphernalia
and that the defendant had the cannabis or drug paraphernalia in
his immediate and exclusive possession or control. See Frieberg,
147 Ill. 2d  at 360. Whether there is knowledge and whether there
is possession or control are questions of fact to be determined by
the trier of fact. People v. Galloway, 28 Ill. 2d 355, 358 (1963). 
	 Mere proximity is not sufficient evidence of actual
possession (People v. Ray, 232 Ill. App. 3d 459, 462 (1992)), and
knowledge of the location of contraband is not the equivalent of
possession but merely a necessary element of criminal possession
(People v. Jackson, 23 Ill. 2d 360, 363-64 (1961)). Actual
possession is the exercise by the defendant of present personal
dominion over the illicit material (People v. Brookhouse, 289 Ill.
App. 3d 1079, 1082 (1997)) and exists when an individual
exercises immediate and exclusive dominion or control over the
illicit material (see People v. Gonzalez, 313 Ill. App. 3d 607, 616
(2000)). Actual possession does not require present personal
touching of the illicit material but, rather, present personal
dominion over it. People v. Clark, 173 Ill. App. 3d 443, 451
(1988). The rule that possession must be exclusive does not mean
that the possession may not be joint (People v. Embry, 20 Ill. 2d 331, 335-36 (1960)); if two or more persons share immediate and
exclusive control or share the intention and power to exercise
control, then each has possession (People v. Scott, 152 Ill. App. 3d
868, 871 (1987)). Where possession has been shown, an inference
of guilty knowledge can be drawn from the surrounding facts and
circumstances. Jackson, 23 Ill. 2d  at 365. The fact of possession
must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 23 Ill. 2d  at
365.  
	In the instant case, according to the parties' agreed statement
of facts, a young man admitted Officer Baize to the single-family
residence so that the officer could search for the driver of a parked
vehicle. While ascending an interior stairway, he noticed smoke,
smelled what he believed was burning marijuana, and noticed that
the smell was stronger when he reached the top of the stairs. When
he turned into an upstairs bedroom, the door to which was partially
open, he knocked and received a response to "come in." In that
very small room there was considerable smoke and haze, the smell
of burning marijuana, and four persons, one of whom was the
defendant, the only person sitting on the floor. The others were
seated on a couch and on a bed in the room. On the floor of the
bedroom were items of drug paraphernalia, namely, three bongs,
i.e., pipes, as well as three clear plastic bags containing crushed
green plant. A fourth clear plastic bag was recovered from the
couch after one of the two persons sitting on it attempted to
conceal something from the police. Elsewhere in the room were
other items of drug paraphernalia. Defendant was sitting less than
12 inches from one of the plastic bags, which together with a
bong, was within her reach as she sat there. Officer Baize saw no
drinks, snacks, or food in the room, but when he asked, "[W]hat
are you doing?" defendant responded, "[W]e're having a party."
She did not say, "They're having a party."
	We conclude that, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. As the trier of fact, the trial court could well have found
that defendant had knowledge of the presence of the cannabis and
of the drug paraphernalia and that she had the cannabis and drug
paraphernalia in her immediate and exclusive possession or
control. Given the evidence here, the trial court could properly
have determined that defendant exercised present personal
dominion over the illicit material, so that she was in actual
possession of it. The evidence not being so improbable or
unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
defendant, we will not set the conviction aside. 
	For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the appellate court
is reversed and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Appellate court judgment reversed;
circuit court judgment affirmed.