Court Opinion

ID: 9744107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:53:42.519666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.768134
License: Public Domain

CRAVEN, P. J., dissenting: The indictment in this case has four counts. Count I charged a violation of section 22-12(6) (e) of the Criminal Code (Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 38, § 22-12(6) (e)), alleging the purchase of paregoric and the subsequent purchase of an exempt narcotic within 48 hours. Count n, likewise, alleged the same offense of two purchases of exempt narcotics within 48 hours. Under this section of the Criminal Code both Counts I and n, therefore, charged unlawful possession of narcotic drugs, which is what the statute makes the offense of two purchases of exempt narcotics within 48 hours. The evidence in this case relates to those two counts. The judgment of the court, however, makes no reference to either Count I or Count II but the judgment of conviction is based upon Counts in and IV, each of which charges the offense of unlawful acquisition of drugs by fraud and deceit or material misrepresentation in violation of section 22-39 of the Criminal Code (Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 38, § 22-39). I agree with the majority opinion that Counts III and IV are mutually exclusive as a matter of reason and logic. The evidence in this case, in my view, makes no showing of anything sufficient to convict under section 22-39. The judgment of conviction, therefore, was entered upon the wrong counts of the indictment. Counts I and n were undisposed of by the trial court. Those counts are not before us. People v. Randall, 25 Ill2d 431, 185 NE2d 146 (1962). Section 121-9 of chapter 38, Ill Rev Stats 1965, provides that, on appeal, “plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.” Such is the fact here. This court should not affirm a judgment of conviction entered upon the wrong counts of an indictment. I must, therefore, dissent, although I have no disagreement with the language and opinion of the majority as to the issues determined. The omission of the above-related defect is the sole basis for this dissent.