Opinion ID: 3134814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to uphold his conviction. To sustain the charge of controlled substance trafficking which was levied against defendant in this case, the State was required to prove that defendant, with knowledge, brought into this state a controlled substance for the purpose of delivery or with the intent to deliver. People v. Frieberg , 147 Ill. 2d 326, 360 (1992); 720 ILCS 570/401.1(a) (West 1994). Defendant disputes only the State’s proof of his knowledge of the cocaine. Initially, defendant contends that the trial court infringed upon his presumption of innocence by improperly applying People v. Bell , 53 Ill. 2d 122, 126 (1972). There, we stated that “[w]here narcotics are found on premises under the defendant’s control, it may be inferred that he had requisite knowledge and possession, absent other facts and circumstances which might leave a reasonable doubt as to guilt in the minds of the jury.” This presumption has been extended to automobiles under a defendant’s control. See, e.g. , People v. Wells , 241 Ill. App. 3d 141, 146 (1993). Defendant contends that the presumption should not apply in this case, where drugs were found in a secret compartment in a vehicle driven for hire which the driver did not own. Defendant notes that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that when drugs are in secret compartments, mere control of a vehicle is not sufficient to demonstrate knowledge on the part of the driver. See, e.g. , United States v. Resio-Trejo , 45 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 1995) (and cases cited therein). See also Whitney v. State , 726 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. App. 2000) (adopting Fifth Circuit’s rule). Rather, there must be additional evidence suspicious in nature or indicating guilty knowledge. Resio-Trejo , 45 F.3d at 911. Other states have also held that knowledge cannot be based on mere presence in a vehicle owned by another where the contraband is out of sight. See Ferrell v. State , 649 So. 2d 831 (Miss. 1995); Commonwealth v. Garcia , 409 Mass. 675, 569 N.E.2d 385 (1991). New York has codified a presumption that every person in an automobile is in knowing possession of any controlled substance present therein, but carved out an exception for “a duly licensed operator of an automobile who is at the time operating it for hire in the lawful and proper pursuit of his trade.” N.Y. Penal Law §220.25(1)(a) (McKinney 2000). We agree that we would be dubious of a result based solely on a presumption of knowledge in a case such as the instant one, where drugs were found in a secret compartment in the trailer of a vehicle driven for hire, which the driver did not own. However, the State does not argue in favor of such a rule. Rather, the State contends that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in this case to uphold the result reached by the trial court. In reviewing this claim, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. People v. Perez , 189 Ill. 2d 254, 265-66 (2000). It is the trier of fact’s responsibility to determine the witnesses’ credibility and the weight given to their testimony, to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence; we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact on these matters. People v. Brooks , 187 Ill. 2d 91, 132 (1999). However, although determinations by the trier of fact are entitled to great deference, they are not conclusive. Rather, we will reverse a conviction where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. People v. Smith , 185 Ill. 2d 532, 542 (1999) (jury trial); People v. Pellegrino , 30 Ill. 2d 331, 334 (1964) (bench trial). In this case there are several pieces of uncontradicted evidence which weigh in defendant’s favor. For instance, Trooper Balma’s testimony regarding the trucking industry tended to exculpate defendant, specifically his testimony that a driver would normally only check if the load was secure before driving; that the diamond plate panel could not be seen from the rear of the truck; and that when he was a driver he drove the load he was given where he was told, even when he did not think his employer was making the best possible use of the truck. Also supporting defendant are the facts that defendant not only gave the police permission to search the vehicle after being told he was free to leave, but informed the police–both Balma and, later, Malone–that Colon was also driving a truck on the same route. The trial judge acknowledged that this latter fact would seem to militate in defendant’s favor, but stated that he was “never surprised at some of the things that are done.” Still, the State maintains that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt to uphold his conviction. Knowledge may be, and ordinarily is, proven circumstantially. People v. Crane , 308 Ill. App. 3d 675, 683 (1999); People v. Nash , 282 Ill. App. 3d 982, 985 (1996); People v. Weiss , 263 Ill. App. 3d 725, 731 (1994); People v. Farrokhi , 91 Ill. App. 3d 421, 427 (1980). Cf. People v. Hickey , 178 Ill. 2d 256, 292 (1997) (“ ‘[i]n a prosecution for home invasion, knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence so long as the State presents sufficient evidence from which an inference of knowledge can be made’ ”), quoting People v. Ramey , 240 Ill. App. 3d 456, 462 (1992). In this case, the State relies on the following evidence adduced at trial: (1) defendant’s connection to other drug smugglers; (2) inconsistent and suspicious testimony by defendant; (3) the value of the cocaine; (4) the presence of two pagers in the cab of the truck; and (5) defendant’s nervousness. The State contends that these facts, taken in concert, suffice to uphold defendant’s conviction. The State’s assertion that “the defendant, Colon, Then/Fernandez, and Estrella were intimately associated with one another’s activities” fails to find support in the evidence. Other than defendant’s admission that he was a friend of Colon, the only evidence linking defendant and any of the other persons mentioned are (1) defendant’s admission that he had met Estrella, who owned the truck defendant was driving; (2) the August 1994 truck repair bill in Fernandez’s name for the truck Colon was driving, found in the folder containing the registration of the truck defendant was driving; and (3) several old parking receipts, found somewhere in the cab of the truck defendant was driving. The unrebutted evidence, established not only by defendant’s testimony but also by the log books in his truck, was that he had driven for Estrella only once before the trip during which Trooper Balma stopped him. The three-month-old truck repair bill and the parking receipts simply do not bear the weight placed on them by the State. The evidence presented at trial is no basis for an inference that defendant and the others were “intimately associated.” Moreover, as the trial court stated, the question is not whether there was a drug ring operating; clearly there was. The question is what defendant knew. The next evidence upon which the State relies is “inconsistent and suspicious testimony by the defendant.” For instance, the State contends that defendant testified inconsistently about exactly when Estrella hired him to go to California. We see no inconsistency here. Defendant testified that when he met Estrella at the restaurant he agreed to drive for him, but he did not find out the exact date he would be going until Estrella called him later. The State also observes that defendant claimed to have called Estrella from California to ask permission for his girlfriend to come out but could not remember Estrella’s telephone number at trial. We again see no inconsistency. Defendant never claimed to have dialed from memory, and his failure to recollect the number is further explained by his uncontradicted testimony that Estrella’s telephone number was written on Colon’s pager. The State further points to defendant’s inability to give the address of Star Produce or Rocky Road Trucking at trial. But Officer Malone testified that defendant had given him the street and town where Star Produce was located during the post-arrest interview. A few hours after the interview Malone telephoned the New Jersey authorities to inform them of this information. Defendant’s bill of lading and the written warning which Trooper Balma issued to defendant also contain the address of Star Produce, and the town in which Rocky Road Trucking was located was written in defendant’s log books. These facts derail the State’s implication–and the trial court’s speculation–that there were no such companies as Star Produce or Rocky Road. The State produced no evidence that Star Produce or Rocky Road did not exist, despite being in possession of facts enabling the State to make such a determination. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the companies did not exist, we would see no reason to impute this knowledge to defendant or to fault him for failing to investigate his employer. The State denigrates defendant’s testimony that he was unfamiliar with the log books, in light of his 17 years of involvement with the trucking industry. However, this ignores his uncontradicted testimony that he was only a local driver and the log books were of a type only used for long hauls. We note that the State did not impeach this testimony through its rebuttal witness, Trooper Balma. The State also notes that defendant testified that he had known Colon for 20 years but did not know his address. This is peculiar, but we fail to see the significance. A great deal of the State’s case was devoted to attempting to demonstrate links between defendant and Estrella and the other persons who had driven for him, including Colon especially. The State is not contending that defendant’s ignorance of Colon’s address implies that they did not in fact know each other. Nor does the State contend that defendant was feigning ignorance of Colon’s address in order somehow to protect Colon. Indeed, such a claim would be somewhat perplexing even beyond the question of what harm it could do Colon for defendant to testify as to his address, in light of the facts that (1) defendant knew that Colon had already been arrested for cocaine trafficking, and (2) Colon had been arrested because defendant had told the police about him . In the context of discussing defendant’s testimony, the State also notes the circumstances of the two trips defendant made for Estrella. The State reiterates that according to defendant’s own testimony, first he and Colon flew out to California and drove back together, for which defendant was paid $900, then on the second trip he and Colon drove from New Jersey to California, stayed in California for four to five days, then returned to New Jersey in separate trucks. For this trip he was also to be paid $800 or $900. On the return trip neither defendant’s truck nor Colon’s truck was more than half full. As previously noted, the fact that neither truck was full was one of the key pieces of evidence upon which the trial court relied in convicting the defendant. However, the weight of this evidence depends almost entirely on the presumption that defendant knew Colon’s truck was not full. Defendant testified that Colon had loaded first and he, defendant, was not even present when Colon’s truck was loaded. Defendant stated that he believed that he just got what was left over. The State introduced no evidence showing that defendant knew what Colon was carrying. We note that the State was in possession of both defendant’s and Colon’s bills of lading, but only introduced defendant’s into evidence. That document showed the exact time that defendant was loaded and the company which did the loading. If defendant’s story regarding the loading procedure was a fabrication, the State had the means in its possession to so demonstrate. It did not do so. There was no evidence from which defendant’s knowledge of the light load Colon was carrying could be inferred. The trial court also found the financial circumstances of the trip unusual. The court believed defendant’s suspicions should have been aroused when he was flown out to drive back on the first trip because he should have known that the employer could get a California driver to make the trip. The court also stated that defendant could not have made any money on the second trip if he was paid only $900 to drive round trip between New Jersey and California, waiting for four or five days between trips and paying for a hotel and meals during that time. However, defendant’s testimony was that Colon paid for all meals and hotel rooms except for the two days when defendant and his girlfriend stayed in a separate room together in California, which defendant thought cost approximately $45. Nor was there any basis for the inference that defendant knew before leaving New Jersey that he would be delayed in California. He testified that he was only so informed upon arrival. The daily pay would have been much better if not for the delay. Moreover, the trial court apparently accepted defendant’s testimony that he had never driven further than Pennsylvania before working for Estrella, stating, “here is a driver who has never been beyond Pennsylvania and going coast to coast with Colon.” We cannot see any basis for imputing to this defendant knowledge that he was transporting narcotics based on the fact that he was driving less than a full load of perishable fresh produce to the east coast during winter. Further, the court relied in part on the fact that defendant had been flown to California, which occurred not on this trip, but the previous one. This fact is remote to the question of defendant’s knowledge that he was transporting cocaine on this trip. Finally, as previously noted, Trooper Balma admitted that when he, as a trucker, had believed that his employer was not making an efficient use of his truck or time, he still drove where he was told. It was simply not his job to question the economics of the trip he was being asked to take. The State also contends that the high value of the contraband found in this case constitutes a proper basis for an inference that defendant was not simply an unwitting “mule,” citing United States v. Pollock , 926 F.2d 1044 (11th Cir. 1991). The defense contends that the value of the drugs is equally susceptible to the opposite inference. That is, the defense argues that a smuggler might prefer that a driver not know the drugs are there, because of the risk of theft of a valuable shipment. Although we generally leave inferences to the trier of fact, the trial court made no mention of the value of the drugs in explaining its ruling. We note that Pollock is based on the notion that one would not ordinarily put an extremely valuable cargo in the hands of a stranger. However, in this case, defendant was supposed to make the entire trip in the company of Colon. Colon introduced defendant and Estrella and Colon’s vehicle contained drugs worth over three times as much as the drugs in defendant’s truck. Accordingly, even if defendant was unaware of the drugs in his truck, the trafficker would not truly have “entrust[ed] a shipment” of considerable worth to an outsider ( Pollock , 926 F.2d at 1050), because Colon was with him the entire time. We take judicial notice that Colon was convicted of controlled substance trafficking and sentenced to 60 years’ imprisonment for the incident in question. People v. Colon , No. 3–95–0486 (1998) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The fact that Colon was supposed to be with defendant the entire trip lessens any intrinsic weight to be accorded to the value of the drugs. The State also argues that the large amount of cocaine found in the truck gives rise to an inference that the two pagers “were part of the tools of the trade of the drug business.” The State provides no authority for this inference or any explanation as to how or why we should impute knowledge of the drugs to defendant because of the presence of the pagers. Defendant explained at trial that (1) he carried his own pager with him all the time, and he had one because he was a freelance driver and he needed prospective employers to be able to contact him; (2) he was supposed to contact Estrella when he dropped off the cargo and Estrella’s telephone number was written on the pager Colon gave him; and (3) he also had Colon’s pager because Estrella might wish to contact him during the trip to see where he was and his own pager only operated in New Jersey and New York. The State presented no evidence to impeach or cast doubt on defendant’s explanations. The final factor the State cites in favor of upholding defendant’s conviction is his nervousness during the traffic stop. Defendant argues that according to the testimony he was most nervous when he was being interrogated regarding his girlfriend. He contends that, accordingly, his nervousness should be interpreted as relating to her presence, as he explained at trial, rather than the cocaine. Defendant’s explanation is somewhat supported by Trooper Balma’s testimony that generally only the driver or drivers of the truck are allowed to be in the truck. But Balma testified that defendant was nervous even when he was not being questioned about his passenger, as did Trooper Miroux. We agree with the State that defendant’s nervousness militates in favor of a finding of knowledge. See, e.g. , People v. Roberts , 263 Ill. App. 3d 348, 353 (1994); People v. Peter , 220 Ill. App. 3d 626, 630 (1991). Still, as the State concedes, although nervousness does weigh in favor of a finding of knowledge, it is not in and of itself sufficient to uphold such a finding. United States v. Diaz-Carreon , 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990) (finding in that case that nervousness was linked to the presence of the drugs because the defendant, before being told that drugs had been found, volunteered the statement “If the truck is loaded, I didn’t know about it”). In a criminal case it is our duty carefully to examine the evidence adduced at trial. We must give due consideration to the fact that the fact finder saw and heard the witnesses. But “[i]f, after such consideration we are of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is our duty to reverse the judgment of conviction.” People v. Bartley , 25 Ill. 2d 175, 180 (1962); People v. Jefferson , 24 Ill. 2d 398, 402 (1962). “[A] judgment of conviction can be sustained only upon credible evidence that removes all reasonable doubt of guilt, and where the evidence of the prosecution is improbable, unconvincing or contrary to human experience, we will not hesitate to reverse” that conviction. People v. Stevenson , 25 Ill. 2d 361, 365 (1962). We cannot sustain defendant’s conviction on the evidence adduced in this case. The circumstantial evidence was scant at best, and appears even weaker in light of the evidence supporting a not guilty finding. Of course, a fact finder need not accept the defendant’s version of events as among competing versions. People v. Dean , 207 Ill. App. 3d 640, 643 (1990). But in this case much of the evidence supporting defendant came not only from defendant, but from Trooper Balma, the State’s own witness. He testified that a driver would normally do no more than check if the load was secure before driving, and acknowledged that the diamond plate panel could not be seen from the rear of the truck. Balma also testified that he did not make it his business, as a driver, to question the economics of a trip he was being paid to take, even when he did not think his employer was making the best possible use of the truck. Other facts indicative of defendant’s innocence are wholly uncontradicted, i.e. , defendant’s consent to the search and his telling the police that Colon was also driving a truck on the same route. We recognize that this case involves a very serious crime. But, as this court recently observed, this does not affect the bedrock principle at issue: “What is involved here is the standard of proof which is applicable to all crimes. That is to say, conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the crime charged be trespass, shoplifting, armed robbery, or murder, the test is the same. The burden of meeting this standard falls solely on the prosecution. If it fails to meet this burden, a defendant is entitled to a finding of not guilty. No defendant is required to prove his innocence. While a not guilty finding is sometimes equated with a finding of innocence, that conclusion is erroneous. Courts do not find people guilty or innocent. They find them guilty or not guilty. A not guilty verdict expresses no view as to a defendant’s innocence. Rather, it indicates simply that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof. While there are those who may criticize courts for turning criminals loose, courts have a duty to ensure that all citizens receive those rights which are applicable equally to every citizen who may find himself charged with a crime, whatever the crime and whatever the circumstances. When the State cannot meet its burden of proof, the defendant must go free.  It is no help to speculate that the defendant may [be guilty]. No citizen would be safe from prosecution under such a standard.” Smith , 185 Ill. 2d at 545-46.