2013 IL App (4th) 120162
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Kenneth Johnson was convicted at a July 2011 trial of unlawful possession with intent to deliver a heroin-containing substance and unlawful possession of a heroin-containing substance.
- The State alleged the group’s trip to Chicago was for obtaining heroin and that Johnson either shared the intent to deliver or was constructively in possession.
- Simmons testified that McCrady planned to sell the heroin in St. Louis and that Johnson helped drive and held heroin at times.
- The jury asked for definitions of intent to deliver and the court provided guidance on delivery as transfer of possession, with or without consideration.
- The court ultimately reduced Johnson’s convictions to lesser-included offenses and remanded for a new sentencing hearing because the State failed to prove intent to deliver beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State prove intent to deliver beyond a reasonable doubt? | State proved shared intent or Johnson’s intent. | Johnson did not share McCrady’s intent to deliver. | Conviction for intent to deliver vacated; no shared intent proven. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of Johnson’s possession with intent to deliver, or only possession? | Evidence showed Johnson assisted and knew the heroin’s destination. | No proof Johnson intended to deliver; accountability not argued. | Insufficient for intent to deliver; convictions reduced to lesser offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Scott, 2012 IL App (4th) 100304 (4th Dist. 2012) (set out possession standard and circumstantial evidence approach)
- People v. Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d 397 (1995) (circumstantial evidence and factors indicating intent to deliver)
- People v. Nixon, 278 Ill. App. 3d 453 (1996) (statutory interpretation of possession and penalties)