{
  "id": 3374259,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID SANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sanderson",
  "decision_date": "1977-05-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-469",
  "first_page": "472",
  "last_page": "474",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 Ill. App. 3d 472"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "237 N.E.2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2857846
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/40/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N.E.2d 269",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. 2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2823060
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/29/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 N.E.2d 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5426040
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/63/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 372,
    "char_count": 6167,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.875,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7378882367977604e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7065716958787944
    },
    "sha256": "842553c23b3b0ad3f413f704aae071d72a1d8915ec0ef4fa0ae67020e44d3931",
    "simhash": "1:cf97b1f8f3aba8de",
    "word_count": 1010
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:43:36.955471+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. DAVID SANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury found the defendant, David Sanderson, guilty of unlawful delivery of a substance represented to be a controlled substance in violation of section 404 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 56%, par. 1404), the circuit court of Tazewell County sentenced the defendant to a period of probation and a fine of *750.\nOnly two witnesses were called to testify at trial, a narcotics officer to whom the drugs were sold and the defendant. John Stephens, the narcotics officer, testified that on August 28,1974, the defendant sold him approximately 1,000 tablets of a substance which the officer understood to be amphetamines or \u201cspeed.\u201d No explicit reference to \u201cspeed\u201d or amphetamines was used by the defendant on the August 28 transaction, but according to Stephens, the defendant stated something to the effect that the tablets sold on the 28th were \u201cout of the same batch\u201d as some tablets defendant had sold to Stephens on a previous occasion. Over objection of defense counsel, Stephens related the circumstances of the prior transaction which had occurred on August 24, 1974. The officer recalled that the defendant had spoken of \u201cspeed\u201d on that occasion and in response to an inquiry by the officer if the defendant had any more \u201cspeed\u201d he could spare, the defendant said he could spare another hundred hits, whereupon he sold to the officer 100 amphetamine tablets for *25. The agent had met the defendant on one other occasion, but no sales took place. On cross-examination, the officer stated that the defendant had no mustache, but may have had a small amount of facial hair, as if he were starting a beard or hadn\u2019t shaved.\nThe defendant testified he had never seen Officer Stephens prior to trial and had never seen the bag and pills admitted into evidence on behalf of the State. He stated that in August 1974 he wore a mustache and had a full-grown (two inches long) beard. In response to a question on cross-examination of whether the defendant had any friends who would have seen him with a beard in August 1974, the defendant answered in the affirmative. During closing argument the prosecutor commented on the fact that the defendant had testified that other people saw him with a full beard and mustache, but the defendant had failed to bring these people into court as witnesses on his behalf.\nOn this appeal the defendant claims that the prosecution\u2019s comments upon defendant\u2019s failure to call witnesses constituted reversible error, the testimony of Officer Stephens referring to an earlier sale was impermissible evidence of other crimes, and finally, the evidence failed to prove defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no merit in any of these claims.\nWe need not discuss in detail defendant\u2019s contention that error occurred when the prosecutor commented upon defendant\u2019s failure to introduce any witnesses who saw defendant with a beard. In People v. Blakes, 63 Ill. 2d 354, 348 N.E.2d 170, the court held it was proper to elicit such information from a defendant on cross-examination and then comment upon it during closing argument. Upon the authority of Blakes, we find no error in either the prosecutions cross-examination of defendant or his closing argument.\nAs concerns defendant\u2019s objection to the testimony of Officer Stephens, it is well established that evidence of narcotic transactions by a defendant other than the one for which he is being tried is relevant and properly admissible to prove the defendant\u2019s identity, his knowledge, or to show his design or system. (People v. Cole, 29 Ill. 2d 501, 194 N.E.2d 269.) It was proper to allow Officer Stephens to testify about the sale on August 24.\nLastly, defendant contends that the evidence failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In support of his contention, defendant argues that the officer\u2019s identification was suspect and the officer\u2019s testimony did not establish that the defendant expressly represented the substance being sold on August 28 as \u201cspeed.\u201d The testimony of Officer Stephens was sufficient to convict the defendant. While the more commendable practice might be for the prosecution to call some of the other witnesses who observed the sale, we know of no case which requires such a practice. While the failure to call these witnesses does weaken the State\u2019s case and such a failure is an appropriate subject for defense counsel\u2019s closing argument, it does not render the jury\u2019s decision invalid. The officer observed the defendant on three separate occasions and identified him in open court. This evidence was sufficient, if believed, to allow the jury to find that the defendant was the individual who sold the amphetamines to Officer Stephens.\nNor do we find any necessity before a defendant may be convicted under section 404 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, that during the sale, the defendant expressly denominate the controlled substance being sold. It is sufficient that the evidence establish a common understanding between the defendant and the undercover officer as to the type of substance being sold. We believe such an understanding is supported by the evidence in this case.\nThe issues of credibility that are necessarily attendant to any case where it is the word of the defendant against the word of the sole prosecution witness were resolved against the defendant. A reviewing court should not disturb a conviction unless the evidence is so improbable as to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. (People v. Mills, 40 Ill. 2d 4, 237 N.E.2d 697.) We have no such doubts in this case.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nSTENGEL, P. J., and BARRY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Michael O\u2019Brien, of Hamm, Hanna & O\u2019Brien, of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "Bruce Black, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (James E. Hinterlong and Linda M. Vodar, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID SANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 75-469\nOpinion filed May 13, 1977.\nE. Michael O\u2019Brien, of Hamm, Hanna & O\u2019Brien, of Peoria, for appellant.\nBruce Black, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (James E. Hinterlong and Linda M. Vodar, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0472-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 508
}