{
  "id": 2623521,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Neil Heerwagen, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Heerwagen",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-190",
  "first_page": "144",
  "last_page": "145",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 3d 144"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill.App.3d 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2496781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/29/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N.E. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ill. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4786576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/266/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "390 U.S. 377",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6170914
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/390/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N.E.2d 361",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill.2d 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2797257
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "307, 308-09"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/23/0306-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 288,
    "char_count": 3936,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.794823778316573e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7155256928106619
    },
    "sha256": "e0f03670b9acee4d75a75fe94e1fecec149cf90f0cf277b56b4ab47129b40f60",
    "simhash": "1:89a410ae2f6caf0d",
    "word_count": 637
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:28.126609+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. Neil Heerwagen, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury trial in the circuit court of McDonough County defendant, Neil Heerwagen, was found guilty of possession of between 30 and 500 grams of cannabis and sentenced to probation on the condition that he serve 10 weekends of periodic imprisonment in the county jail.\nAlthough several errors are assigned, due to the view we take of this case the only issue we need deal with on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant was in possession of the contraband. Defendant argues mere presence in a room where cannabis is found is not sufficient to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The People do not appear to dispute the general validity of the rule but contend there was sufficient evidence to show the contraband in question was within defendant\u2019s immediate control.\nThe evidence shows police officers with a search warrant searched a residence containing three rooms and a bathroom downstairs and three bedrooms upstairs. Defendant was found by a police officer in an upstairs bedroom lying on a bed reading a book. The police officers testified finding in the same room a hash pipe, bags of marijuana, some roaches, and some marijuana seeds in an ashtray. The defense presented no evidence.\nThe general rule applicable regarding proving possession of contraband is contained in People v. Nettles, 23 Ill.2d 306, 307, 308-09, 178 N.E.2d 361, wherein the court stated: \u201cIn order to support a conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics, the People must establish knowledge on the part of defendant of the presence of narcotics and must also establish that the narcotics were in the immediate and exclusive control of defendant.\u201d The court continued, \u201c[W]here narcotics are found on the premises under the control of defendant, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession by him which may be sufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics, absent other facts and circumstances which might leave in the mind of the jury, or of the court where a jury is waived, a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.\u201d\nThe dispositive question for this court is whether the evidence shows defendant did in fact have control of the room in which he was found lying reading a book. Unable to point to any competent evidence in tire record, the People rely on extrinsic facts and inadmissible evidence in attempting to prove defendant\u2019s control. Defendant\u2019s alleged statement in his motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress evidence that the bedroom was his place of residence is inadmissible as evidence. (Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 88 S.Ct. 967.) The affidavit attached to the search warrant is also inadmissible, as is the search warrant itself. People v. Fryer, 266 Ill. 216, 107 N.E. 134.\nNo competent evidence was presented showing defendant owned, rented, or even lived in the house itself, or rented or lived in the room in question. This dearth of evidence concerning defendant\u2019s control necessitates the conclusion that the People proved at best nothing more than defendant\u2019s mere presence in a room containing contraband. In accord with applicable ca!se law (People v. Howard, 29 Ill.App.3d 387), the evidence here is insufficient to prove defendant\u2019s possession beyond a reasonable doubt.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the circuit court of Mc-Donough County is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.\nALLOY and STENGEL, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James Geis and Richard Steck, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Henry D. Sintzenich, State\u2019s Attorney, of Macomb (F. Stewart Merdian, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Neil Heerwagen, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-190;\nThird District\nJuly 18, 1975.\nJames Geis and Richard Steck, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nHenry D. Sintzenich, State\u2019s Attorney, of Macomb (F. Stewart Merdian, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0144-01",
  "first_page_order": 170,
  "last_page_order": 171
}