{ "id": 411576, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODGER L. ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Robertson", "decision_date": "2000-03-24", "docket_number": "No. 3 \u2014 98 \u2014 0102", "first_page": "467", "last_page": "470", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "312 Ill. App. 3d 467" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "598 N.E.2d 948", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "957" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Ill. App. 3d 885", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499465 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "898" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/232/0885-01" ] }, { "cite": "540 N.E.2d 468", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 Ill. App. 3d 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2640128 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526-27" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/184/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "561 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 2d 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3251719 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "214" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/137/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "564 N.E.2d 803", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "826" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 Ill. 2d 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5573939 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/139/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 N.E.2d 1124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1130" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5550081 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/122/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "583 N.E.2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" }, { "page": "519" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Ill. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5596242 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "364" }, { "page": "364" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/145/0353-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 449, "char_count": 7165, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.359045075765643e-08, "percentile": 0.4416265195383978 }, "sha256": "fa2b820105c14bcfa142b0da6946f0d83f0d471cd7bbc91fb99b1963ff76600f", "simhash": "1:8a0258c9b353f7bb", "word_count": 1223 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:04.567640+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. RODGER L. ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KOEHLER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Rodger Robertson, was convicted of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. 720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 1996). On appeal, we must determine whether the trial court erred in allowing an undercover officer to testify that pagers are commonly used in drug sales. We affirm.\nAt trial, Officer Tom Wiley testified that on December 10, 1996, he was contacted by Brenda Brown, a confidential informant. Brown had recently been arrested, and she offered to buy some crack cocaine from the defendant in exchange for consideration in her case. She and Wiley agreed to try to set up a controlled purchase with the defendant. Later that evening, Brown began calling the defendant\u2019s pager number from Wiley\u2019s cellular phone while in Wiley\u2019s presence. Her page was finally returned around 1 a.m. the next morning. Wiley heard a male voice agree to sell her an eighth of an ounce of cocaine for $200. After Brown hung up, she told Wiley that the defendant said his girlfriend, Vicki Marks, would deliver the drugs.\nWiley testified that they drove to a gas station to make the purchase. When they arrived, Marks gave some cocaine to Brown in exchange for around $160. During the transaction, Brown received a call on Wiley\u2019s cellular phone. Brown said that the defendant was calling to see if Marks had arrived. Following the transaction, Wiley signaled the other officers to converge on the scene and Marks was arrested.\nOfficer Wiley further testified that he had worked as an undercover officer for 6V2 years. He was familiar with how drug deals are arranged. The most common way to contact a dealer was by a telephone pager. This method had been used in one-half to three-fourths of the cases he had worked on.\nBrenda Brown testified that, when she spoke to the defendant, he was unable to get her any cocaine. She tried calling him again and Marks answered the phone. Marks agreed to deliver the cocaine to Brown behind the gas station. When they met, the defendant called Brown on her cellular phone and asked if she had found any cocaine. Brown said that Marks was there and she was going to provide it.\nFollowing Brown\u2019s testimony, Officer Wiley resumed the witness stand. He said that he had talked to Brown after she had testified. Brown told him that she was unhappy with the deal she had received on her charges and with the fact that she was going to jail. Therefore, she had lied and said that Marks, not the defendant, had agreed on the phone to sell her cocaine.\nVicki Marks testified that she met with the defendant around 12:30 a.m. on the morning of December 11, 1996. He asked her to deliver an eighth of an ounce of cocaine to Brown. She never spoke to Brown on the telephone before the delivery. Following her conversation with the defendant, Marks drove to the meeting place to make the delivery. During the delivery, Brown received a call. She heard Brown say, \u201cVicki is here right now.\u201d\nDoug James, an employee of Arch Paging, testified that the defendant received 3,632 pages in November 1996; 3,261 in December; 2,002 in January 1997; and 2,033 in February. On average, a user of their paging equipment received about 70 pages a month.\nEllen Varnell, the defendant\u2019s daughter, testified that the defendant did not have his pager with him on the evening of December 10, 1996, or early the next morning.\nOn appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Wiley to testify that pagers are commonly used in drug deals. The defendant contends that the testimony was inadmissible \u201cprofile\u201d evidence of a drug dealer.\nThe admission of evidence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 364, 583 N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991). An abuse of discretion occurs when the judge\u2019s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would take the same view. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 364, 583 N.E.2d at 519.\nThe State notes that the defendant did not object to this testimony at trial or in his posttrial motion. Therefore, the issue is waived, and we will only find error if the alleged error rose to the level of plain error. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 187, 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 (1988); 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a). Plain error is error in a case where the evidence is closely balanced or error that is so serious that it denies the defendant a fair trial. People v. Hayes, 139 Ill. 2d 89, 143, 564 N.E.2d 803, 826 (1990).\nThe evidence in this case was not closely balanced. Both Officer Wiley and Vicki Marks presented testimony indicating that the defendant had arranged the drug transaction. Their testimony was credible and consistent. Brenda Brown disputed this testimony. However, her testimony was impeached by Officer Wiley\u2019s testimony that she had turned on the State because she was unhappy with her sentence. Therefore, we resolve this prong of the plain error test in favor of the State.\nThe second prong of the test is reserved for rare cases where a reviewing court must correct an error \u201cto preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process.\u201d People v. Herrett, 137 Ill. 2d 195, 214, 561 N.E.2d 1, 10 (1990). No such error occurred here. First, contrary to the defendant\u2019s assertion, Officer Wiley did not testify that \u201can individual who owned a pager with as much activity as the defendant\u2019s was a drug dealer.\u201d He simply stated that, in his experience, pagers were commonly used in drug deals. As a veteran undercover narcotics officer, he could provide expert testimony on the use of pagers in drug sales. People v. Chanath, 184 Ill. App. 3d 521, 526-27, 540 N.E.2d 468, 472 (1989).\nOfficer Wiley\u2019s testimony is distinguishable from the evidence in the defendant\u2019s cited case of People v. Brown, 232 Ill. App. 3d 885, 598 N.E.2d 948 (1992). In Brown, the officer testified to numerous characteristics that he said were consistent with those of a drug dealer. Some of the characteristics were not connected to the defendant or the circumstances of the offense. The reviewing court held that the testimony, taken as a whole, was inadmissible profile evidence of a drug dealer. Brown, 232 Ill. App. 3d at 898, 598 N.E.2d at 957. In the instant case, Officer Wiley\u2019s testimony, even considered in conjunction with the pager records, did not rise to the level of detail presented in Brown. Additionally, his testimony had some relevance to the case. We therefore conclude that the defendant did not meet the second prong of the plain error test.\nBased on the foregoing, we hold that plain error did not occur. We therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Henry County.\nAffirmed.\nSLATER, EJ., and HOLDRIDGE, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KOEHLER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel D. Yuhas and John M. McCarthy, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Ted J. Hamer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Cambridge (John X. Breslin and Terry A. Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODGER L. ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 98 \u2014 0102\nOpinion filed March 24, 2000.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and John M. McCarthy, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nTed J. Hamer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Cambridge (John X. Breslin and Terry A. Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0467-01", "first_page_order": 487, "last_page_order": 490 }