2019 IL App (2d) 160871
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On Feb. 24, 2015, Elgin police stopped a Honda Civic driven by Keith Starks; officers found tied baggies of crack/cocaine (20 small bag corners), a box of sandwich bags, a collapsible metal baton in a jacket, and defendant on the scene; defendant was handcuffed and taken to the station.
- Forensic testing identified cocaine in multiple small bags; 20 bag corners initially weighed 15.2 g in the field; laboratory testing of 20 small bags showed 9.9 g total (15 of the bags tested positive for cocaine and weighed 6.1 g together).
- Defendant admitted the baggies on his person, the jacket, and the baton were his; he denied the drugs were his and said he was driving for a friend who was ill.
- Defendant was indicted on counts including possession with intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a church, aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (metal expandable baton), and driving while license revoked; he waived a jury trial on the weapons charge and was tried by jury on the drug and driving charges.
- The State presented expert testimony (drug-investigations expert) that packaging, quantity, lack of user paraphernalia, presence of extra packaging and a weapon, and approximate street value supported intent to deliver.
- Jury convicted Starks of possession with intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a church and driving while license revoked; bench convicted him of aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon; sentences were imposed and Starks appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the collapsible metal baton is a "bludgeon" under §24-1(a)(1) | Baton is a bludgeon: weighted, thicker at one end, extendable to 21 inches, intended to be covered by the statute protecting public and police from dangerous weapons | Baton is a nightstick, not a bludgeon; Fink supports excluding such an item | Court: Baton qualifies as a "bludgeon"; conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon affirmed |
| Whether evidence proved possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver beyond a reasonable doubt | Packaging into many small knotted bag corners, extra sandwich bags, weapon, and expert testimony support intent to deliver | Amount (9.9 g) and circumstances consistent with personal use; no direct evidence of a sale or transaction | Court: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, circumstantial evidence (packaging, quantity, lack of paraphernalia, weapon, expert opinion) supports intent to deliver; drug conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Collins, 6 Ill. App. 3d 616 (1972) (held unconventional objects used only as weapons may qualify as "bludgeons")
- People v. Fink, 91 Ill. 2d 237 (1982) (discussed nightstick/billy within "bludgeon" definition and charging requirements)
- People v. Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d 397 (1995) (sets out factors for inferring intent to deliver from circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318 (2005) (Jackson v. Virginia standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Perry, 397 Ill. App. 3d 358 (2010) (upheld that objects like a padlock-in-a-sock may be a "bludgeon")