People v. Wise, 182 N.E.3d 656

Trooper stopped a minivan for speeding; defendant Charles Wise was driving and three occupants were in the vehicle.
During the stop officers smelled cannabis and searched the van; a handgun and two rounds were found concealed inside a glove/cupholder in the third‑row rear passenger area about 5–10 feet behind the driver.
Trooper testified Wise admitted he knew a gun was in the van; two passengers denied the gun belonged to Wise. A defense witness (Burrell) testified he bought the gun and left it in the van.
Wise was tried by bench trial, convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24‑1.1(a)), sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and acquitted of the oxycodone charge.
The appellate court vacated the weapon conviction, holding “on or about his person” requires the firearm be in such close proximity as to be readily usable as though on the person; the gun was not so located and any earlier proximity occurred outside Illinois.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: it construed the statute, agreed constructive possession is covered by “about,” but held the State failed to prove immediate and exclusive control (constructive possession) here, so the conviction could not stand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of “on or about his person” in 24‑1.1(a)	Section covers a felon’s possession generally and should be read with cases holding constructive possession may include weapons in vehicles.	Phrase should mean the weapon is on the person or in such close proximity that it can be readily used as though on the person (not blanket vehicle liability).	Court: “on or about his person” includes constructive possession, but must be proven by knowledge plus immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found.
Sufficiency of evidence of constructive possession here	Wise drove and had authority to use the van, admitted knowing the gun was in the vehicle, and at times sat near it—evidence a rational trier could find constructive possession.	Gun was 5–10 feet behind driver, not reachable from driver’s seat; officer did not see Wise touch gun; owner testified he left the gun in the van; no fingerprints—so State failed to prove immediate and exclusive control.	Court: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, proof was insufficient to establish immediate and exclusive control; conviction vacated.

People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419 (Ill. 1950) (defines “on or about his person” as in such close proximity that it can be readily used as though on the person)
People v. Niemoth, 322 Ill. 51 (Ill. 1926) (similar formulation of “about his person” as readily accessible for immediate use)
People v. Condon, 148 Ill. 2d 96 (Ill. 1992) (constructive possession requires some type of immediate access or timely control to serve the statute’s deterrent purpose)
People v. Gonzalez, 151 Ill. 2d 79 (Ill. 1992) (sections 24‑1 and 24‑1.1 create separate, distinct offenses)
People v. Clodfelder, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1030 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (constructive possession found where defendant admitted ownership and knowledge and rifle was located in vehicle he controlled)
People v. Rangel, 163 Ill. App. 3d 730 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (vehicle ownership, presence in vehicle, and partial visibility supported knowing possession)
People v. Jastrzemski, 196 Ill. App. 3d 1037 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (weapon hidden in car could be “on or about” person where defendant knew location and controlled car)
People v. Frieberg, 147 Ill. 2d 326 (Ill. 1992) (constructive possession exists without present physical dominion but with intent and capability to maintain control)
People v. Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d 236 (Ill. 2001) (appellate standard: when trier of fact weighs credibility, reviewing court does not retry facts)