Court Opinion

ID: 9734716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:44:06.432684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:50.797151
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN dissenting: Without proof that the defendant knowingly possessed a narcotic drug, the defendant could not have been convicted of the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug and the jury should have been so instructed. People v. Truelock, 35 Ill.2d 189. The problem is that the instructions submitted to the jury on this charge (Instructions 16 and 17) omitted the element of knowledge. The contention that this omission is reversible error was first raised on appeal. The majority opinion has ruled that because the instructions were given without timely objection, the issue cannot now be raised on appeal for the first time. However, Supreme Court Rule 451(c) provides that substantial defects in the instructions are not waived by failure to make timely objections if the interests of justice require. I think this case is such an exception to the ordinary waiver rule; this court should review the issue of defective jury instructions. The function of jury instructions is to inform the jurors as to the law applicable to the issues they must decide. In particular, jury instructions must clearly tell the jurors what the elements of the crime are and which side has the burden of proof. (People v. Davis, 74 Ill.App.2d 450; People v. Kuykendall, 120 Ill.App.2d 225.) It is not necessary that one instruction be a complete statement of the law; it is only necessary that instructions, when read together in a series, fully and accurately state the applicable law. (People v. Falley, 366 Ill. 545, 551; People v. Gilbert, 12 Ill.2d 410, 416; People v. Epping, 17 Ill.2d 557, 566; People v. Mills, 40 Ill.2d 4, 15.) In this case it must be decided whether the jury instructions when read in a series (Instructions 16, 17, 18, 19 and 19-A) made it clear to the jurors that the accused had to knowingly possess the heroin to be guHty of that crime. The state argues that Instruction 19-A supplemented Instructions 16 and 17 and thereby the jurors were adequately and fully informed as to the elements of the crime. Reading Instructions 16, 17, 18, 19 and 19-A in a series, I cannot agree that the jury was so informed. People’s Instruction No. 16 reads: “A person commits the crime of violating the Narcotic Drug Act who possesses heroin.” People’s Instruction No. 17: “To sustain the charge of violating the Narcotic Drug Act, the State must prove the foHowing proposition: That the defendant possessed heroin. If you find from your consideration of aU the evidence that this proposition has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guHty. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that this proposition has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty.” People’s Instruction No. 18: “A person commits the crime of violating the Narcotic Drug Act who knowingly has in his possession a hypodermic syringe, hypodermic needle or an instrument adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by subcutaneous injection.” People’s Instruction No. 19: “To sustain the charge of violating the Narcotic Drug Act, the State must prove the foHowing proposition: That the defendant knowingly had in his possession a hypodermic syringe or hypodermic needle adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by subcutaneous injection. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that this proposition has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that this proposition has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty.” People’s Instruction No. 19-A: “Possession is a voluntary act if the offender knowingly procured or received the thing possessed, or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient time to have been able to terminate his possession.” A plain reading of these instructions suggests Instructions 16 and 17 were the sum total of the instructions regarding the charge of possession of heroin; likewise, Instructions 18, 19 and 19-A appear to be all of the instructions regarding the separate crime of possession of hypodermic needles and syringes. Both the sequential arrangement of these five instructions and the fact that the word “knowingly” appears in Instructions 18, 19 and 19-A and is conspicuously absent from Instructions 16 and 17 lead to this conclusion. This conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that Instruction 17 was verdict directing, and as such, should have included every element of the crime since the jury could reasonably assume that that instruction alone fully and accurately stated the law. (Gregg v. People, 98 Ill.App. 170; People v. Young, 188 Ill.App. 208.) “When the court gives a charge designed to cover all the issues in the case, it should embrace all the essential elements involved therein. In such case, omission of a material issue is error.” 5 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, par. 2090 (R. A. Anderson ed. 1957). To ask jurors to come to a verdict in Instruction 17 and expect them to supplement the elements of the crime recited in that verdict directing instruction by Instruction 19-A without an express reference back to the crime of possession of heroin is unreasonable. (Hoge v. People, 117 Ill. 35, 6 N.E. 796.) The omission of the knowledge element from Instructions 16 and 17 constituted error. Generally, improper jury instructions deny the accused a fair trial and therefore constitute reversible error. However, there is a linñ of cases holding that “where * * * the evidence was so overwhelmingly against the defendant that had the jury been instructed correctly, they must still, necessarily, have found as they did,” the court should decline to reverse for mere error of instruction. (Hoge v. People, 117 Ill. 35, 6 N.E. 796.) The most often cited authority for this policy as applied to narcotics is People v. Truelock, supra. Truelock, like Horton, was also tried for possession of heroin and the element of knowledge was also omitted from the jury instructions. However, the facts distinguish the two cases. Truelock had been observed by police in possession of heroin and was arrested at a table which had a considerable quantity of heroin on it. The Truelock court held that although it was error to omit the element of knowledge from the jury instructions, it was not reversible error since the evidence that he knotoingly possessed the heroin was so clear and convincing “that the jury could not have reasonably found Truelock innocent.” The evidence presented against Horton is not so “clear and convincing.” The principal prosecution witness on the element of knowledge was the Superintendent of the Illinois Bureau of Investigation, Mitchell Ware: “The search was started in the north bedroom, then Mr. Horton said, ‘The stuff is * s * in the other bedroom.’ He then took me to the south bedroom, pointed to the top of a shelf. There was a hypodermic needle and a cooker * * After relating that these and other items were taken into custody, Mr. Ware then recalled Horton’s reaction: “The defendant said, ‘You got nothing. That’s not stuff.’ ” (“Stuff” is slang for heroin.) The. defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the presence of any narcotics in his apartment; His wife also so testified. In sum, the record of the case does not provide “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant knew there was heroin in his apartment. It was a close question for the jury to decide; therefore it was essential for the jury instructions to be accurate. (People v. Galloway, 28 Ill.2d 355, 192 N.E.2d 370, U.S. cert. denied in 376 U.S. 910; People v. Mack, 12 Ill.2d 151, 195 N.E.2d 609.) Here the defendant was convicted of a crime by a jury which had been incorrectly instructed that they could convict him without proof of an essential element of the crime with which he was charged. This constituted reversible error. The defendant is entitled to have the issue of his guilt decided by a jury fully and clearly informed as to the element of the crime.