{ "id": 2826911, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard C. Hudson, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hudson", "decision_date": "1970-12-08", "docket_number": "No. 52935", "first_page": "1033", "last_page": "1042", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "130 Ill. App. 2d 1033" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "353 U.S. 925", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6169522, 6169790, 6169598 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/353/0925-01", "/us/353/0925-03", "/us/353/0925-02" ] }, { "cite": "139 N.E.2d 724", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill.2d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2724498 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/10/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 U.S. 851", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 450496, 451087, 450483, 450324, 450931, 451224, 451098, 450942, 450975 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/371/0851-08", "/us/371/0851-03", "/us/371/0851-02", "/us/371/0851-07", "/us/371/0851-01", "/us/371/0851-04", "/us/371/0851-09", "/us/371/0851-05", "/us/371/0851-06" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.E.2d 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill.2d 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "389 U.S. 1015", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11412868, 11412648, 11412717, 11412529, 11412791, 11412601 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/389/1015-06", "/us/389/1015-03", "/us/389/1015-04", "/us/389/1015-01", "/us/389/1015-05", "/us/389/1015-02" ] }, { "cite": "381 F.2d 824", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 312280 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/381/0824-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 N.E.2d 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 Ill.App.2d 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2545217 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/89/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 N.E.2d 87", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 Ill.App.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1587058 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/116/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N.E.2d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ill.App.2d 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2592273 ], "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/69/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N.E.2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill.2d 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2725986 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/10/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 N.E.2d 699", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2885689 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 N.E.2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill.2d 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2859505 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 U.S. 860", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11372617, 11372395, 11372557, 11372181, 11372313, 11372473, 11372282 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/389/0860-07", "/us/389/0860-04", "/us/389/0860-06", "/us/389/0860-01", "/us/389/0860-03", "/us/389/0860-05", "/us/389/0860-02" ] }, { "cite": "219 N.E.2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 Ill.App.2d 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2583557 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/73/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 N.E.2d 425", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill.2d 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2852288 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N.E.2d 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ill.App.2d 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2543232, 2542195 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/81/0090-01", "/ill-app-2d/81/0090-02" ] }, { "cite": "181 N.E.2d 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill.2d 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2801257 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0188-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 904, "char_count": 21714, "ocr_confidence": 0.744, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4438239969095645e-07, "percentile": 0.653717263052788 }, "sha256": "8347cacd12207d203e3ceee4461e5ad81e37ac78cd7ae13b3f95e82536d6262b", "simhash": "1:8b22b21d9500dc73", "word_count": 3583 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:32.959960+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard C. Hudson, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LYONS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Howard C. Hudson, was indicted for the sale of a narcotic drug in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, par. 22\u20143. After a trial by jury, he was found guilty and was sentenced to the Illinois State Penitentiary for not less than ten nor more than fourteen years.\nOn appeal, the defendant raises four points: (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that the substance in question was cannabis sativa (marijuana) in accordance with the statutory definition of narcotic drugs; (2) reference by the State during trial to other crimes violated defendant\u2019s right to a fair trial; (3) the court failed to instruct the jury concerning the essential elements of the offense; and (4) the prosecutor\u2019s closing argument was inflammatory beyond allowable limits.\nAt trial, Donald Norton testified that he was an Inspector with the Illinois Division of Narcotics and had been so employed for seven and one-half years. He stated that he first met the defendant on October 10, 1966, at a restaurant called \u201cThe Hut\u201d in Evanston, Illinois. Norton was seated in a booth with three other persons (Miller Riley, Rogers Nugent and Ann Croft) when the defendant approached and stated, according to Norton, \u201cthat I was supposed to do business with him that night and not the other two individuals I was with.\u201d Norton, who was operating undercover by the name of Danny, told the defendant that he was busy and might talk to the defendant later.\nNorton stated that he next encountered the defendant on October 17, 1966. On that date, Norton and his partner, Inspector Charles McKissack, went into \u201cThe Hut\u201d and saw the defendant sitting at the counter. McKissack was operating under the name of Chuck at this time. The three men exchanged greetings and sat in a booth. Norton testified that McKissack inquired about purchasing a \u201ccouple of cans\u201d and the defendant quoted a price of $50.00 for two \u201clarge cans.\u201d The defendant then left the booth to make a telephone call. Norton stated that when the defendant returned from the telephone, he told them that \u201ceverything was mellow, and that we could cop,\u201d i.e., purchase drugs.\nNorton testified that he next saw the defendant on October 27, 1966, and again on November 8, 1966, when the defendant was arrested.\nOn cross-examination, the witness testified that he was introduced to the defendant on October 10, 1966, by Ann Croft, who had supplied information to the State Division of Narcotics on prior occasions.\nOn redirect examination, Norton indicated that Miss Croft accompanied him to \u201cThe Hut\u201d for purposes of introducing him to an individual named \u201cFrog.\u201d When asked, \u201cWho is \u2018the Frog\u2019?\u201d the witness replied, \u201cHoward Hudson.\u201d\nJohn Carsten testified that he was a narcotics agent with the Illinois Division of Narcotics and had been so employed for three and one-half years. He indicated that he first met the defendant about 8:00 P.M. on October 27, 1966. Carsten was with Inspector McKissack in an unmarked state vehicle which they parked on the street in front of \u201cThe Hut.\u201d McKissack pointed out the defendant, who was standing in front of the restaurant. McKissack left the auto and engaged the defendant in conversation. Carsten stated that he then saw the defendant enter the restaurant, leaving McKissack on the street. A few minutes later, the defendant came out of the restaurant and then walked over to the car with McKissack. McKissack introduced Carsten to the defendant. Cars-ten stated that the two men got into the auto and he drove to the intersection of Church and Darrow Streets in Evanston. There, according to Carsten, the defendant instructed him to park near the intersection and left the vehicle for about twenty minutes. When he returned, the defendant said, \u201cI am unable to find my man.\u201d Carsten made a U-turn and drove back to the intersection of Church and Darrow and the defendant said, \"There he is now. Stop the car.\u201d Carsten indicated that he did not see this other individual but stopped the auto. The defendant got out and returned a short time later and said, \u201c I have the stuff but left \u2014 .\u201d Carsten then testified that the defendant suggested that they go back to \u201cThe Hut\u201d so they \u201ccould get the acid.\u201d Carsten, however, said: \u201cAs long as we have the pot in the vicinity here, let\u2019s pick it up now and we can go back to The Hut later.\u201d Carsten stated that he then drove around the block and again stopped the car. The defendant left the vehicle \u201cand walked in between two houses into a gangway and returned a few seconds later. In his hand he had two Manila envelopes which he handed to Inspector McKissack.\u201d Carsten stated that McKissack then gave the defendant $20.00.\nOn cross and redirect examinations, Carsten testified that the defendant was not arrested on the night of October 27, 1966, because the defendant had agreed to deliver further amounts of marijuana in the future. No further sales were made, however.\nState narcotics inspector Charles McKissack testified that he first met the defendant on October 17, 1966, at \u201cThe Hut\u201d in Evanston, Illinois. He was introduced to the defendant by Inspector Norton.\nMcKissack stated that he next saw the defendant on October 27, 1966, at \u201cThe Hut.\u201d On this occasion, McKissack was with Inspector Carsten in an auto which they parked in front of \u201cThe Hut.\u201d McKissack saw the defendant standing in front of the restaurant and went over to speak with him. McKissack indicated that he spoke briefly with the defendant and asked: \u201cCan you still do what you said you could do on the phone\u201d? The defendant said \u201cthat he thought he could, but he would have to make a phone call first to find out if everything was all right.\u201d McKissack then testified that the defendant went into \u201cThe Hut\u201d to make a phone call and, after completing his call, returned and said that everything was all right and \u201cthat we could come with him and he would take us to a place where we could buy marijuana.\u201d McKissack and the defendant then got into the auto and the defendant instructed Cars-ten, the driver, where to go. On one occasion, the defendant told Carsten to stop the car and left the two inspectors for a short time. When he returned, the defendant indicated that he couldn\u2019t find \u201cthe man.\u201d Carsten then made a U-turn and the defendant said, \u201cThere is the man,\u201d and instructed Carsten to again stop the car. McKissack stated that he saw a Plymouth or Dodge with a man in it. The defendant left the auto and disappeared into an alley. When he returned, according to McKissack, the defendant said, \u201cEverything is mellow, we can cop.\u201d He then asked McKissack for the money and McKissack gave him twenty dollars. The defendant then went into the alley again and, about forty minutes later, came back in an auto with \u201cthe man.\u201d The defendant again disappeared for a few minutes and, upon returning, said: \u201cI have hidden the marijuana, let\u2019s go get the LSD.\u201d McKissack then stated that Inspector Carsten suggested that they get the marijuana first and they did so. McKissack indicated that the defendant gave him the marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the defendant left the company of the inspectors. The inspectors then proceeded to their office and, after properly securing the substance supplied by the defendant, sent it to the Chicago Crime Laboratory for analysis.\nOn cross-examination, Inspector McKissack testified that when he first met the defendant on October 17, 1966, he engaged the defendant in a conversation \u201crelative to my purchasing marijuana.\u201d He further stated that he did not arrest the defendant on October 27, 1966 [the date of the transaction]. The arrest was made on November 8, 1966, with the following law enforcement personnel participating: Inspector Norton, Detectives Marshall Barksdale and Davis Schram of the Evanston Police Department, Sergeant Jerry DcGross of the Evanston Police Department, and the witness, Inspector McKissack. Inspector Carsten did not participate in the arrest.\nOn redirect examination, McKissack testified that no arrest was made until November 8, 1966, because it was not until then that the inspectors had determined that the defendant would not be of use in the development of cases against other offenders in the area. McKissack also testified that he had a phone conversation with the defendant on October 26, 1966, and, in relating the conversation, stated: \u201cMr. Hudson answered the phone and I said, \u2018This is Chuck.\u2019 And he didn\u2019t remember, or said he didn\u2019t. He said, \u2018Chuck who\u2019? I said, \u2018Chuck, from Chicago. You remember, I was up there and bought some stuff from you the other day\u2019 \u201d? According to McKissack, the defendant then stated that he had some \u201cacid\u201d and some marijuana to sell and the two men agreed to meet at \u201cThe Hut\u201d the next evening.\nOn recross examination, McKissack indicated that on the night of October 27, 1966, after the defendant gave him the two packets of marijuana, they drove to the vicinity of Sherman and Clark Streets in Evanston and stopped. The defendant asked McKissack for an additional $25.00 and McKissack gave him the money. Then, the defendant left the auto and disappeared for about ten minutes. Continuing, McKissack stated: \u201cHe came back to the car and handed me a white plastic bottle, the type that you use for nasal sprays, or something like that, and he handed it to me and told me the quality or the strength of the LSD, and that sort of thing.\u201d McKissack stated that he and the defendant then had a brief conversation \u201crelative to make additional purchases of marijuana and LSD.\u201d McKissack further stated that a chemical analysis of the contents of the bottle proved \u201cnegative as to a narcotic and negative as a dangerous drug.\u201d\nSergeant Charles Vondrak, a chemist with the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory, testified that he had analyzed the substance [contained in the packets which were given to McKissack by the defendant] and found that it weighed 3.7 grams and was \u201ccannabis, commonly referred to as marijuana.\u201d\nOfficer Marshall Barksdale of the Evanston Police Department testified that he participated in the arrest of the defendant on November 8, 1966. At the time of arrest, the defendant was riding in an automobile with Inspectors Norton and McKissack. Barksdale, driving an unmarked squad car, pulled the inspectors\u2019 auto over to the curb and effected the arrest.\nOn cross-examination, Officer Barksdale testified that he had a warrant for the arrest of Howard Hudson on November 8,1966.\nThe defendant\u2019s age was stipulated to be twenty years.\nThe defense introduced evidence of the defendant\u2019s good character through Ozella Pratcher, a co-employee and long-time acquaintance of the defendant, and through Reverend Carlis Moody, the pastor of the defendant\u2019s church.\nInitially, the defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the substance in question was cannabis sativa as defined by statute. The statutory definition, contained in Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 22\u20142\u201417, reads as follows:\n\u201cNarcotic Drugs\u201d means any of the following: * # * (3) \u201cCannabis\u201d includes all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L. (commonly known as marihuana), whether growing or not; the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin; but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom) fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination * * *. [Emphasis added].\nDefendant argues that the testimony of Charles Vondrak, the police lab chemist, established only that the substance in question was marijuana, i.e., of the plant Cannabis Sativa L. This testimony, defendant argues, was insufficient to prove that the substance, although marijuana, was a narcotic drug within the meaning of the statute because there was no showing that none of the statutory exceptions, e.g., \u201cmature stalks of such plant,\u201d was applicable. The defendant contends, in effect, that unlawful marijuana is defined by the exceptions, by what it is not, and suggests that the State has the burden of showing that the marijuana did not come from an excepted part of the plant.\nThe defendant relies heavily upon People v. Lott (1962), 24 Ill.2d 188, 181 N.E.2d 112. In Lott, the defendant was charged with the sale, possession and dispensing of narcotic drugs. At Lott\u2019s trial, a chemist from the Chicago Crime Detection Laboratory testified on cross-examination that he subjected contents of certain cigarettes allegedly sold by defendant Lott to Chicago police officers to chemical and microscopic tests and determined that the substance was composed of certain mature portions of the cannabis plant. [Emphasis added], Lott was found guilty by the trial judge who, in giving his reasons for his decision, stated that the defendant thought he was selling marijuana. On appeal, Lott raised an issue identical to the one raised in the instant case, i.e., that the articles sold were not proven to be narcotic drugs under the statute. While it recognized the general rule that when a criminal statute sets forth an exception, which exception operates to prevent an act otherwise included in the statute from being a crime, the burden is on the defendant to bring himself within the exception, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the defendant had brought himself within the exception by establishing, through cross-examination of the chemist, that the substance analyzed consisted of mature portions of the cannabis plant. In addition, the Court recognized that the crime of selling an article under the representation that it is a narcotic drug, when in fact it is not, is separate and distinct from the charges of selling or possessing or dispensing a narcotic drug. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 22\u201440.) Thus, Lott\u2019s conviction was reversed because the State had failed to meet its burden of proof after the exception issue had been raised by the defendant and because the trial court had found the defendant guilty of a crime for which he had not been indicted.\nIn the case at bar, we find no evidence which shows that the defendant met his burden of establishing an exception under the statute. In addition, we find no indication that the defendant was convicted of a crime for which he was not indicted. It seems clear, therefore, that the Lott case is inapplicable here. We do not, however, rest our decision on that determination alone. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 22\u201444, provides as follows:\n\u201cIn any complaint, information, or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this Act, it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption, contained in this Act, and the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption, shall be upon the defendant.\u201d [Emphasis added]\nThe language of this statute is clear and unequivocal. It places a definite burden upon the defendant to prove the applicability of any exception contained in our Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. No burden is put upon the State, with respect to an exception, until such time as the defendant introduces evidence to show that an exception is applicable. Because the defendant has introduced no such evidence in the instant case, his first contention must fail. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence in this case was sufficient to prove that the substance in question was a narcotic drug within the statutory definition. See People v. Washington (1967), 81 Ill.App.2d 90, 225 N.E.2d 472, aff'd., 41 Ill.2d 16, 241 N.E.2d 425 (1968); People v. Marichez (1966), 73 Ill.App.2d 230, 219 N.E.2d 625, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 860 (1967).\nFor his second contention, the defendant asserts that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial because the testimony of Inspector McKissack included references to other offenses committed by the defendant. Specifically, the defendant refers to McKissack\u2019s testimony about the LSD purchase and his testimony concerning a phone conversation in which he stated that he had made prior purchases from the defendant.\nWhile it is true that parts of McKissack's testimony suggest the commission of extra-indictment offenses by the defendant, we do not not agree that the testimony was erroneously admitted by the trial court. We do not believe that the evidence of other offenses was introduced for the sole purpose of showing the defendant\u2019s propensity toward committing crimes like the one for which he stood indicted. Therefore, the recent case of People v. Meid, No. 69\u2014167 (Ill.App.2d Dist., filed Sept. 3, 1970) (rehearing granted), upon which the defendant relies, is not on point here. We believe that under the circumstances of this case the facts concerning the LSD purchase and the telephone conversation were all a part of the continuing narrative which concerned the events attending the entire transaction for which the defendant was indicted. Merely because the full disclosure of the facts in this case showed that Hudson was guilty of other crimes did not limit the scope of the investigation. Here, such facts were all part of one continuous narrative. (People v. Peto (1967), 38 Ill.2d 45, 230 N.E.2d 236; People v. Wells (1965), 33 Ill.2d 394, 211 N.E.2d 699; People v. Marose (1957), 10 Ill.2d 340, 139 N.E.2d 735; People v. Alexander (1966), 69 Ill.App.2d 27, 216 N.E.2d 180; Wigmore, Evidence pars. 218, 306 (3d ed. 1940).) Accordingly, no error was committed by the trial court in admitting the testimony in question.\nDefendant next asserts that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the essential elements of offense. He refers specifically to States Instruction No. 9 which was given by the trial court over defense objection. That instruction reads as follows:\n\u201cThe Court instructs the jury that \u2018Narcotic Drugs\u2019 includes Cannabis, which includes all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativ [a] L., commonly known as marihuana.\u201d\nDefendant argues that this instruction is fatally defective because it did not include the statutory exceptions contained in the definition of Cannabis under Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 22\u20142\u201417(3). As we have stated earlier, the defendant introduced no evidence which showed that a statutory exception might be applicable in this case. Having failed to produce any evidence concerning exceptions, the defendant may not now assert that such exceptions were at issue in the trial. Thus, because the exceptions were not at issue, no instructions concerning the exceptions were required. The instruction here was fully supported by the evidence in the case and it was not reversible error for the trial judge to have given it. See People v. Curtis (1969), 116 Ill.App.2d 298, 254 N.E.2d 87; People v. Brown (1967), 89 Ill.App.2d 231, 231 N.E.2d 262. See also United States v. Kahn (7th Cir. 1967), 381 F.2d 824, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1015 (1967).\nFor his final contention, defendant argues that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during final argument were prejudicial and inflammatory beyond tolerable limits. The particular statements complained of are as follows:\n# # *\n\u201cA sale is not consummated at State and Madison, in fuU view of hundreds of people. This is not the type of merchandise that is offered quite legitimately. This is a duty business, they are dealing in slow death * * *. Do not permit them to die from marijuana drugs * # *. It better be stopped right here in court. It better be stopped by you twelve ladies and gentlemen of the jury and not by a lot of nonsense * # *. this danger against young people that get this marijuana, this marijuana that cripples their ability to reason, to act, to think * * *. Cripples their ability to act as human beings. Who pays the ultimate penalty? You, you, and you, to support the habit.\u201d\n# # #\nDefendant properly points out that there is a legitimate dispute being waged among scientists over the effects of marijuana upon the human system. But, though we are interested in such matters, we express no opinion as to the possible physiological or psychiatric effects which marijuana may have upon a human being. We are concerned with the propriety of the prosecutor\u2019s closing remarks. In this connection, we are mindful that considerable latitude has traditionally been allowed in closing argument. And, though a careful scrutiny of the prosecutor\u2019s argument discloses that in a few instances he may have transcended the bounds of legitimate argument, a reversal is not warranted unless it appears that the prosecutor\u2019s remarks so influenced the jury that the defendant was substantially prejudiced. (See People v. Hampton (1962), 24 Ill.2d 588, 182 N.E.2d 698, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 851 (1962); People v. Lopez (1957), 10 Ill.2d 237, 139 N.E.2d 724, cert. denied, 353 U.S. 925 (1957).) Here the jury returned a just verdict. Indeed, it was the only reasonable conclusion to be reached on the basis of the evidence adduced at trial.\nAccordingly, the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMcCORMICK, P. J., and BURKE, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LYONS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Julius Lucius Echeles and Frederick F. Cohn, both of Chicago, for appellant.", "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Roger S. Matelski, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard C. Hudson, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 52935;\nFirst District\nDecember 8, 1970.\nJulius Lucius Echeles and Frederick F. Cohn, both of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Roger S. Matelski, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "1033-01", "first_page_order": 1039, "last_page_order": 1048 }