{ "id": 1281407, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES REEVES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Reeves", "decision_date": "2002-01-14", "docket_number": "No. 4-00-0317", "first_page": "1083", "last_page": "1086", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "326 Ill. App. 3d 1083" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "613 N.E.2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "745" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 Ill. 2d 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4810501 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198-99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/155/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "641 N.E.2d 924", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "929", "parenthetical": "\"The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the items at issue are 'peculiar to' drug use and that the defendants 'marketed' those items as drug paraphernalia\" (emphasis in original)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 Ill. App. 3d 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 333142 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61", "parenthetical": "\"The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the items at issue are 'peculiar to' drug use and that the defendants 'marketed' those items as drug paraphernalia\" (emphasis in original)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/267/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "515 N.E.2d 42", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" }, { "page": "45" }, { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill. 2d 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3188469 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "305" }, { "page": "305" }, { "page": "305" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/118/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "747 N.E.2d 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Ill. 2d 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 725359 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/195/0336-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 382, "char_count": 6637, "ocr_confidence": 0.824, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0691065237350873e-07, "percentile": 0.5593300999401896 }, "sha256": "f7996d041c1cccf4facf0d1cc62882a0887a13e1083e8e8a1f21fd16144441d9", "simhash": "1:d22578711a570d3a", "word_count": 1091 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:13.053989+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. CHARLES REEVES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE COOK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Charles Reeves was convicted by a jury of possession of drug paraphernalia, a crack pipe, in violation of the Drug Paraphernalia Control Act (Act) (720 ILCS 600/1 et seq. (West 2000)). Defendant was acquitted, however, of possession of cannabis. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the drug paraphernalia count, arguing the State did not present sufficient evidence on each element necessary for conviction. The trial court denied the motion. We reverse.\nThe question presented in this case is whether, in a prosecution for possession of drug paraphernalia, the prosecution must prove that the possessed item was \u201cmarketed for use\u201d in growing, producing, storing, or ingesting drugs, as is required by section 2(d) of the Act, which defines \u201cdrug paraphernalia.\u201d 720 ILCS 600/2(d) (West 2000). Because the interpretation of a statute is a question of law, our review is de novo. People v. Maggette, 195 Ill. 2d 336, 348, 747 N.E.2d 339, 346 (2001).\nDefendant was charged with knowingly possessing \u201can item of drug paraphernalia, namely: a clear tube with \u2018filtering agent\u2019 with the intent of using it in inhaling a controlled substance into the human body,\u201d in violation of section 3.5 of the Act. Section 3.5 provides:\n\u201c(a) A person who knowingly possesses an item of drug paraphernalia with the intent to use it in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis or a controlled substance into the human body, or in preparing cannabis or a controlled substance for that use, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor ***.\n(b) In determining intent under subsection (a), the trier of fact may take into consideration the proximity of the cannabis or controlled substances to drug paraphernalia or the presence of cannabis or a controlled substance on the drug paraphernalia.\u201d 720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2000).\nUnder section 3.5, it is not enough to possess an item with the intent of using it to ingest a controlled substance. Under section 3.5, the item possessed must be \u201cdrug paraphernalia.\u201d \u201cDrug paraphernalia\u201d is defined as \u201call equipment, products and materials of any kind which are peculiar to and marketed for use in\u201d growing, producing, storing, or ingesting cannabis or a controlled substance. 720 ILCS 600/ 2(d) (West 2000).\nSection 3.5, dealing with possession of drug paraphernalia, is a recent addition to the Act. The original section was section 3, which deals with the sale or delivery of drug paraphernalia. A prior version of section 3 provided there was a violation if the person knew the item to be drug paraphernalia \u201cor under all of the circumstances reasonably should have known\u201d the item to be drug paraphernalia. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 56 1/2, par. 2103(a). To the extent that the prior version purported to allow convictions based on the constructive knowledge of the seller, the supreme court held the statute to be unconstitutionally vague. People v. Monroe, 118 Ill. 2d 298, 305, 515 N.E.2d 42, 45 (1987). \u201cDrug paraphernalia statutes are frequently challenged on vagueness grounds because of the inherent difficulty in proscribing certain articles only in regard to their illicit functions.\u201d Monroe, 118 Ill. 2d at 305, 515 N.E.2d at 45. Such vagueness objections can be overcome, however, by requiring scienter. Monroe, 118 Ill. 2d at 305, 515 N.E.2d at 45. Although a pipe may be peculiar to drug use, that pipe is not \u201cdrug paraphernalia\u201d if the seller or marketer of the pipe does not market the pipe with the intent that the pipe be used to ingest drugs. People v. Feld, 267 Ill. App. 3d 56, 61, 641 N.E.2d 924, 929 (1994) (\u201cThe State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the items at issue are \u2018peculiar to\u2019 drug use and that the defendants \u2018marketed\u2019 those items as drug paraphernalia\u201d (emphasis in original)).\nWhere one is charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, it should logically not be necessary to prove that any person marketed the item with the intent that the item be used to ingest drugs. Rather, it should only be necessary to prove that the person possessed the item \u201cwith the intent to use it in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis or a controlled substance into the human body.\u201d 720 ILCS 600/3.5(a) (West 2000). Nevertheless, the definition of \u201cdrug paraphernalia\u201d which applies to sale and delivery cases also applies to possession cases: items \u201cwhich are peculiar to and marketed for use\u201d (emphasis added) in growing, producing, storing, or ingesting. 720 ILCS 600/2(d) (West 2000).\nThere is no question, and defendant does not contest, that defendant possessed the crack pipe in question in this case. Nor is there any question that the crack pipe, a glass tube with a brillo pad as a filtering agent, is \u201cpeculiar to\u201d drug use. The presence of cocaine on the crack pipe supports the jury\u2019s finding that defendant intended to use the crack pipe to ingest or inhale drugs. See 720 ILCS 600/3.5(b) (West 2000). The only question is whether the crack pipe was \u201cmarketed\u201d for use with drugs. The plain meaning of the statute seems to be that homemade items which have never been marketed cannot constitute drug paraphernalia. While this may be a legislative oversight, we are not allowed to ignore the clear language of the statute. People v. Bole, 155 Ill. 2d 188, 198-99, 613 N.E.2d 740, 745 (1993).\nThe trial court, during the conference on jury instructions, observed there was no evidence that the item was marketed. \u201cIf anything, from what I heard of the testimony[,] it sounds to me like this is a homemade contraption that wasn\u2019t marketed by anybody for anything but rather put together by someone.\u201d The trial court\u2019s finding, as a matter of law, that the Act did not require, in this case, a showing that the item was \u201cmarketed\u201d was in error. The trial court should have granted defendant\u2019s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.\nBased upon our ruling in this case, we need not address defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress.\nAccordingly, we reverse defendant\u2019s conviction.\nReversed.\nMYERSCOUGH and STEIGMANN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE COOK" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel D. Yuhas, Jenifer L. Johnson, and Cathleen DeLaMar, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "John C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Kathy Shepard, all 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. CHARLES REEVES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 00\u20140317\nOpinion filed January 14, 2002.\nDaniel D. Yuhas, Jenifer L. Johnson, and Cathleen DeLaMar, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJohn C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Kathy Shepard, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1083-01", "first_page_order": 1101, "last_page_order": 1104 }