{ "id": 5363532, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Richard Realmo, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Realmo", "decision_date": "1963-09-27", "docket_number": "No. 37539", "first_page": "510", "last_page": "513", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "28 Ill. 2d 510" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "26 Ill.2d 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5356077 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill.2d 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2775506 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/13/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ill.2d 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5353246 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/25/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill.2d 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2775946 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/13/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill.2d 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2738563 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ill.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2799719 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ill.2d 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2724228 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "83" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/10/0074-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 362, "char_count": 5103, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.480103826566898e-07, "percentile": 0.9223188301711799 }, "sha256": "194637ceef59472e05be931c67edc6ca1360a6acaecbe88cb309650e296fedd6", "simhash": "1:4f62140ebb31e539", "word_count": 839 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:04.677975+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Richard Realmo, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Underwood\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nBefore us for review is the judgment of the criminal court of Cook County finding defendant guilty, following a bench trial, of the unlawful sale of narcotics and sentencing defendant to imprisonment for a term not less than 10 nor more than 12 years. It is contended that prejudicial statements were made by the State\u2019s Attorney to the court, that the defendant was entrapped, and that the proof did not establish all elements necessary to a conviction.\nThe only conduct of the prosecutor complained of is a statement by the assistant State\u2019s Attorney made to the judge presiding at defendant\u2019s arraignment that \u201cthe defendant has a previous charge of being a narcotics user.\u201d The trial was presided over by a judge other than the arraignment judge; there is nothing before us to indicate any knowledge of this statement by the trial judge, and defendant does not suggest how this statement made to a judge who did not participate in the trial could have prejudiced defendant. We find no merit in this argument.\nDefendant also complains that a People\u2019s witness testified that defendant burglarized the home of the witness\u2019s brother. It is true that the following testimony was given by a prosecution witness: \u201cThe only time I had trouble was when he [the defendant] burglarized my kid brother\u2019s house, and it was forgotten about.\u201d However, this testimony was brought out by defense counsel on cross-examination, and defendant cannot now complain of answers responsive to his questions. People v. Halteman, 10 Ill.2d 74, 83.\nDefendant claims to have been entrapped by police officers and an informer. A sufficient answer is here present in that defendant specifically denied selling narcotics or possessing them on the date in question. We have repeatedly held the defense of entrapment incompatible with denial of the commission of the acts constituting the offense. (People v. Johnson, 24 Ill.2d 195; People v. Van Scoyk, 20 Ill.2d 232). Since defendant relied below upon a denial that he performed the alleged acts, he cannot here claim he was induced or lured into performing them under circumstances amounting to entrapment. People v. Outten, 13 Ill.2d 21.\nDefendant\u2019s third contention that the proof does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the crime is in reality an attack upon the probative value and sufficiency of the informer\u2019s testimony. People v. Bazemore, 25 Ill.2d 74, cited in support thereof, does hold that under the circumstances there present, an admitted addict\u2019s wholly uncorroborated testimony in- which discrepancies and variations appeared was insufficient to convict. It is significant that in Bazemore there was no surveillance by police of any portion of the informer\u2019s activities in making the purchase, and the arrest of the defendant did not occur until some two months later. As we there stated at page 77, \u201cThis is not a case where the informer\u2019s accusation receives corroboration from close police surveillance of the transaction, from an immediate arrest, or from the finding of marked money on the accused, but one which developed in such a way that the informer was at liberty to name almost any person he wished to select as the guilty one\u201d. Here one or more police officers observed substantially all of defendant\u2019s activity in making the controlled purchase except the actual transfer of the narcotics and the marked money; and as to the narcotics transfer, officer Lopez testified that he saw defendant \u201chanding something to\u201d the informer near the entrance to defendant\u2019s residence which is the location where the informer testified he was handed the drug, and both of the officers who testified stated that defendant admitted making the sale at the time of his arrest which immediately followed delivery of the narcotics by defendant. While none of the marked money was recovered from the informer, this is adequately accounted for by his testimony that he gave it all to the \u201cman in the beige coat\u201d from whom he obtained the drugs.\nPeople v. Davis, 13 Ill.2d 211, cited by defendant as supporting his argument relating to the inadequacy of the proof of delivery was reversed simply because of a complete absence of proof of a sale to a minor, the charge upon which defendant had been indicted and convicted. It has no application here.\nIt is our conclusion that the proof in this case is sufficient, if believed by the trier of fact, to support the conviction. We therefore will not disturb the findings of the trial judge. People v. Perkins, 26 Ill.2d 230, 235.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Underwood" } ], "attorneys": [ "John M. Sullivan, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.", "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 37539.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Richard Realmo, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed September 27, 1963.\nJohn M. Sullivan, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0510-01", "first_page_order": 552, "last_page_order": 555 }