Court Opinion

ID: 9518521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:55:10.110735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:26.669184
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment, but write separately because I do not totally agree with the analysis. I believe that the inclusion of the second definition of “possession” from Black’s Law Dictionary is inappropriate. That definition reads, “The right under which one may exercise control over something to the exclusion of all others; the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of a material object.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1183 (7th ed. 1999). With all due respect to the fine folks at Black’s Law Dictionary, this is the only place I have seen the word “possession” defined as above. This definition implies ownership. I am unaware of any section of the criminal law that requires possession to include ownership. If “possession” is “the right to exercise control over something to the exclusion of all others,” then a “mule” who knowingly agrees to take drugs from Mr. A and deliver them to Mr. B does not have “possession” of the drugs. What actually occurred here was a bailment. The defendant (bailor) transferred the envelope and its contents to Jessica (bailee) with instructions to deliver it to her father. Other than the confusion caused by the second definition under Black’s Law Dictionary, there can be no question that this involved a transfer of possession. I am aware that Justice Barry includes that second definition out of a sense of duty to be complete. However, since that definition is contrary to the common understanding of the term “possession,” I would not include it. If, as the dissent suggests, that definition is correct, it would stand the law of possession in Illinois on its head.