*1 in the record” “suggestions the notion reject especially We cig- on the got fingerprint how defendant’s explained purportedly improper. argument prosecutor’s somehow render wrapper arette evidence, such any in this record from the absence aside Totally a factor have been simply it would presented, had it in fact been The pres- fit. weight saw assign whatever to consider jury the prose- upon limitation any not impose would ence of such evidence to reject urging jury argument, closing in his cutor’s exhortations finger- of defendant’s presence for thе explanations such purported fingerprint regard and instead wrapper cigarette on the print guilt. of defendant’s proof” percent “100 V. Conclusion circuit stated, judgment affirm the we For the reasons court.
Affirmed. McCULLOUGH, J., concur.
GREEN, P.J., and ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE STATE OF THE PEOPLE OF LIBERMAN, Defendant-Appellant. JOSEPH 4 — 91—0038 Fourth District No. 30, 1992.
Opinion April filed *2 STEIGMANN, J., concurring. specially Foust, Appellate of Jeffrey
Daniel D. Yuhas and D. State De- both Office, fender’s of Springfield, appellant. (Kenneth Boyle, R. Attorney, Springfield of Cadagin, M. State’s
Donald Ap- Mannchen, Attorneys of State’s Biderman, all and David E. J. Robert counsel), Office, People. of pellate Prosecutor’s the court: opinion LUND delivered JUSTICE was convicted trial, Joseph defendant Liberman jury After a cocaine containing a controlled substance trafficking absentia Illi grams but than 400 under more than 100 less weighing SGVa, Stat. (Act) Act (Ill. Controlled nois Substances sentenced seq.). appeared 1100 et He thereafter im contending he was (1) Defendant imprisonment. appeals, years’ section 401.1 of the charged under properly failed to a provide because statute par. 1401.1) the trial court possess; (2) he was found for the amount cocaine witness; (3) testimony a asking key erred in Statе question fight witness and defendant regarding a State’s witness between right trial; (4) him of his to a deprive was so as to fair prejudicial factor in sentencing him, improperly the trial court considered a herent in the as a factor aggravation. offense
I. Facts *3 Jameson, girl- The first witness at trial was defendant’s Cindy to- friend at the offense. and Jameson lived time of the Defendant home. Jameson that on gether September Jameson’s testified drugs he taking she with defendant because was upset became and engaged fight in her home. and Jameson in a Defendant became him to to a where compаrtment she told leave. Defendant then went box, bedroom, to and he had stored a tackle took tackle box a this shut the door. then noises out of the coming
Jameson testified that she heard saw suspicious bedroom. She became and door. She opened “doing bag defendant saw large a line cocaine.” She also a stuff” “powdery and cash. going
Jameson asked was on and defendant was replied what “coke” at.” (cocaine) living and stated it “what he made his was en- struggle Defendant locked A slammed the tackle box shut and it. managed sued for of the tackle Jаmeson to wrestle possession box. then to a the tackle box from defendant and she took box away house neighbor’s safekeeping.
Later, him to his pos- Jameson defendant and told remove phoned to re- sessions from her Defendant at Jameson’s home house. arrived begged move his to possessions Jameson return tackle box. refused, fight When she another began police. and Jameson called the police The arrived and oversaw defendant his removing posses- sions from the home. police Jameson then took the officers to her neighbor’s homе and to the gave police. tackle box
The took police custody tackle box and a obtained search The $1,600 cash, warrant. tackle contained bag containing box a cocaine mixed with other cutting agents, and miscellaneous items. An expert testified at trial cutting cocaine mixed with other agents The weighed grams. expert also testified this mixture was pure (plus 7%). (This 64% or minus translates approximately into 105 grams cocaine.)
On taken into custody given October defendant was his Miranda warnings. receiving shipments Defendant admitted of co- Rowan, caine from from friеnd Florida. Defendant sell the would co- caine resulting and return the to Rowan. On October money greater defendant recounted these transactions detail. Defendant specified him, amounts of cocaine that shipped were as well as the amounts of he money returned to Rowan. Rowan testified at trial and verified nature of the transactions which took place between him- evidence, self and defendant. this Upon found jury defendant and this guilty appeal followed. Challenge Charge
II. To And Conviction
Under Section 401.1 Of On February 1989, defendant was charged by complaint with trafficking controllеd substance violation section 401.1 of the Act, in on or September 12, 1988, about knowingly he and with- out authority lawful caused more brought grams than but cocaine, less grams containing than 400 of a substance a controlled substance, into the State Illinois intent to deliver it. At trial, the jury determined that defendant brought 105 of this controlled substance into the State with the intent. requisite By post- motion, trial he argued charged defendant under improperly sec- tion of the Act because that section does not provide i.e., he to possess, grams. amount cocaine was found motions, The trial denied court dеfendant’s defendant renews this challenge appeal. conviction *4 Framework Statutory
A. trafficking The offense of controlled substance was added to the 85-743, §2, 22, (Pub. Sept. Act Act 85-743 Act 1987 by Public eff.
643 401.1, provided it section 3160, Denominated 3164)). (1987 Ill. Laws range au sentencing provision whereunder penalties an enhanced 1987, SGVa,par. ch. Stat. of the Act thorized section 401 by 1401) was doubled: trafficking substance of controlled A convicted
“(b) person than not less imprisonment a term shall be sentenced by authorized an amount as term and fined twice the minimum 1401)] of this 1987, 563/2, par. ch. Stat. Section 401 [(Ill. Rev. sub or counterfeit of controlled Aсt, the amount upon based State, and not into this brought or caused to be brought stance and fined imprisonment term the maximum more than twice Act, of this as authorized Section the amount 401 twice substance or counterfeit of controlled the amount upon based (Emphasis brought into this State.” or caused to be brought 561/2, 1401.1(b). par. ch. Ill. Rev. Stat. added.) Act, making section 401.1 was added to section When 401— deliver, pos or or manufacture knowingly any person unlawful for counterfeit deliver, a controlled or or intent to manufacture sess with to the least offense, from the most of the the class substance —defined Ill. Rev. drug (See involved. serious, the amount and type based on As to 561/2, 1988).) July eff. until (text ch. par. Stat. cocaine, 401(a)(2) provided example, containing substances or more any “15 involving offense that commission of the X felony a Class added)]” was [(emphasis cocaine containing substance made (b)(2) subsection 563/2, 1401(a)(2)); par. ch. (Ill. Rev. Stat. more but not gram “more than involving of the offense commission Rev. Stat. felony (Ill. a Class than 15 of such substance grams” made commission (c) 1401(b)(2)),and subsection par. II narcotic of a Schedule other amount” “any the offense based pars. Ill. Rev. Stat. (see cocaine is drug—which 1987, ch. Stat. (see felony Class 1206(b)(4), 1102(aa)(4))—a 561/2,par. 1401(c)). 1, 1988 85-1003, §3, July eff. (Pub. Act 85-1003
In Public legisla 4710, 4716, 4719)), on November (1987 Laws for stiffer sen part providing pertinent a provision ture added (heroin), (a)(2) 401(a)(1) violating those convicted tences for (LSD)), diethylamide acid (aX7) (lysergic (morphine), (cocaine), (a)(3) under section imposed have been which could otherwise than those (see, e.g., Ill. Rev. (Code) Code of Corrections 5—8—1 of the Unified 6 nor more less than 8—1(a)(3) (not 1987, ch. 1005— on the amount X based felony)) for a Class years than —all *5 This provision, substance involved. added identified in mistakenly 401.1, Act 85—1003 as section as provided Public follows: [(amended “Sec. 401.1 date to section by effective read 401.2)]. person (1), (7) who violates of Any paragraph (2), (3) or subsection Section (a) respect following 401 with to the amounts of controlled or counterfeit substances or controlled substance analogs, notwithstanding any provisions subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or Section con- (g) 401 trary, is of Class X shall to a guilty felony and be sentenced term of as imprisonment follows: years not less than 9 more and not than with
(1) years 40 respect grams to 100 or more but less than grams; 400
(2) not than 12 more years less and not than with years 50 or respect grаms to 400 more than 900 grams; but less (3) not 15 years less than and not more than years with respect more; to 900 or grams
(4) any person respect (1), sentenced to paragraph (2) with or (3) be fined an not may above amount more than the full street or value the controlled counterfeit substance con trolled analog. substance The term value’ ‘street shall have in meaning ascribed Section 110—5 of the Code of Criminal added; Procedure of 1963.” (Emphasis (1987 italics omitted.) 4710, 4719.) Ill. Laws addition,
In Public Act 85—1003 amended 401 in pertinent follows, as part again mistakenly to the referring above-quoted new as provision section 401.1:
“Except provided as Section 401.1 [(amended by 401.2)] effective date to read section any person who violates this respect Section with to: (a) the following amounts of controlled or counterfeit sub- *** *** guilty felony. stances a Class X
[***] but less than 100 [grams] (2) 15 or more any sub cocaine, stance analog or an containing thereof.” (Emphasis original to denote new matter.) 4710, 1987 Ill. Laws 4717. 561/2, 1987, See also Ill. Rev. Stat. (as ch. pars. by added Pub. 1003), Act 1401 (effective July 1, 1988). 85— Thereafter, 1030, 30, Act June 1988, legisla Public 85— ture corrected the numbering above-referenced errors made in Public 1003, Act designating 401.2, section аs newly added 85— amending section 401 to refer to the renumbered section 401.2 (Pub. 85-1030, §4, 1, (1988 eff. July Ill. Laws 561/2, 1401.2, 1401.) Stat., pars. ch. Supp., Ill. (See Rev. 205)). acts, two Public Act these conflict between Given irreconcilable it was last. controlling passed as because regarded 85—1030 must be text of 1, 1105.) provi It is the these (Ill. par. Stat. ch. Rev. 561/2, ch. Stat. sions, 401.1, and 401.2 sections 1401, 1401.2), we 1401.1; with which par. pars. are concerned. however, time defendant note, by as have the parties,
We had sec repealed April legislature was sentenced herein of the Act into section 401 tion 401.2 and its incorporated provisions 1401(a)(2)(B) (text e.g., (see, Ill. 1, 1990 266, §1, (1989 Acts effective Jan. amended Public 86— Laws 1893); 442, §1, (1989 Jan. Laws effective 86— to 100 respect less nine nor more than 40 2682)) (not years than *6 of co grams grams containing or more less than a substance but 400 caine)).
B. Analysis (1) as 401.1 of argument basically Defendant’s follows: Act, convicted, the charged under which he was and does not contain its only— instead penalty provisions specifically own refers —and to Ill. penalties the authorized 401 of the (see 561/2, 561/2, 1401); ch. 1988 ch. par. 1401.1(b); Supp., (2) charged more than 100 but less having brought grams he was containing than into the State with grams 400 of a substance cocaine offense, the intent; 401, at time of the requisite (3) section the 1988, did within its terms being not delineate a September specifically grams the amount of 100 or committing for offense the penalty for ‘15 more; (4) 401(a)(2) penalties “only since section enumerated grams grams containing or more but less than 100 of substance any ” 56%, (see Stat., Supp., par. 1401(a)(2)), Ill. ch. cocaine’ 1988 for an of co “only” penalties sections 401.1 and 401 offense provide than trafficking grams caine in the amount of 15 or more but less 100 statute, of grams, language which the the point, by specific above conduct as (5) because, argues, offense сeases he his trafficking; the first of charged “did not fall within hurdle 401(a)(2)], [sec [section result, was a sentenc and, subsequent tion not satisfied 401.2] into for ing incorporated not reached guidelines are to be [section 401] cocaine”; the State’s trafficking grams (6) Attorney over 100 than trafficking him for in an amount less charged could have 561/2, 1401.1; grams (see pars. of cocaine Rev. Stat. ch. possession grams or for Supp., par. 1401(a)(2)), (see Stat., more than but less cocaine Ill. Rev. par. 1402.1(1)); (7) he not “legally” because could be convicted under section 401.1 for an trafficking in amount over cocainе, 100 grams of his conviction cannot traf now be reduced to ficking stemming a lesser amount of cocaine from the same al act, retrial, though on the State could him prosecute having violated other “valid” criminal laws. v. Chandler
Defendant
relies primarily upon
People
(1989), 129
There,
2d
“Although it
seem
may
peculiar
legislature
not
did
include
burglary
residential
in the list of felonies which
a
make
eligible
defendant
for death if the victim was killed
one
during
them,
this
court cannot
death sentence
our
uphold
through
reading
affirmative act of
the words ‘residential
into
burglary’
(Chandler,
the murder
statute.”
We court refused read statute, the words “residential into the murder burglary” refusing to thereby “create” a felony new which death penalty could be under imposed felony-murder contrast, By doctrine. we need construe the only looking intent legislature by the stat- utory language.
It apparent the legislature that added section 401.1 the to Act by Public Act to 85—743 criminalize controlled traffick substance ing, very and it intended clearly provide sentencing to an enhanced range who such brought those substances into the State for the requisite and purpose intent. Defendant requisite basically questions to language open whether added the second full para graph of section in “Except provided Section 401.2” (Ill. Stat., Supp., par. 1401), incorporates provisions Stat., section 401.2 in par. 1401.2) their entirety purposes prosecution of controlled charges trafficking substance under section of the He argues 401.1 Act. that, (1) does not and because section 401 did not enumer- specifically penalties corresponding and of controlled substances the amounts ate to sec- only refers 401.2, section (2) and in section as set forth of the given notice 401.2, never he was not to section tion 401 and disagree. Act. We 401.2 of the of section penalty provisions intent. legislative and construction statutory question This is a the ac in favor of strictly construed statutes must be criminal While 1299), should they at 543 N.E.2d 129 Ill. 2d at (Chandler, cused legislature. the intent to defeat construed as strictly not so be 1044-45, 562 3d App. v. Goldstein (1990), 204 (People statute, consider the courts construing In 1183, 1185.) N.E.2d law, for the statute, necessity the reasons and used language attained. to be remedied, object purposes and the the evils be N.E.2d 310, 316, 473 v. 105 Ill. 2d e.g., Steppan (1985), People (See, in way in its such entirety The statute must be construed 1303.) v. People Maya (1985), intent. legislative to the give as to effect 1287, 1289. 281, 285, 473 N.E.2d Ill. 2d in adding section 401.2 section 401 and amending
In on those convicted penalties impose intended to stricter legislature larger of controlled substances or delivery the manufacture or deliv- of the manufacture If a defendant were convicted amounts. for which amount than those larger in a ery of a controlled substance 401, that referred stated in section section the class of felony ranges based sentencing increased 401.2, enumerated section which maintains be- Defendant on the amount of substance involved. 401.1, re- section trafficking provision, causе the controlled substance restricted in section we are authorized penalties fers to the only therein, legis- delineated and amounts specific penalties to the 401.2 of the to look to section not authorized the courts lature has Act. for those provide greater penalties intended to legislature of a controlled substance delivery the manufacture or
convicted of 401.2; legislature intended amounts, larger hence section for those i.e., a doubled sentencing range, provide penalties, enhanced substance, regardless trafficking in a cоntrolled convicted statutory provisions these amount, To construe 401.1(b). hence intent, Courts, considering legislative illogical. otherwise would inconven absurdity, not intend did presume legislature must which of the statute interpretation ience or and select an injustice, Step be absurd. that which would logical leads to results and avoids 1303. pan, at 473 N.E.2d at Ill. 2d toto, argument court to the defendant’s adopt Were this for traffick- an enhanced construed to provide 401.1 would be *8 648 in amounts less one
ing gram, gram cocaine in than more than one than grams, but less than 15 and more 15 less than grams, but 100 no but further enhancement of of trafficking in amounts 100 or more.
It is fundamental that statutes are to construed that no be so word, clause or meaningless sentence is rendered or superfluous. (People (1988), 176, 192, 972, 978; v. Fierer 2d 529 Ill. N.E.2d (1987), 341, 347, v. People App. Chevalier 3d 512 N.E.2d 1001, 1005.) indicating result, Absent definitions a statutory different words in a are to given statute their and under ordinary popularly stood meaning. (See People Daley ex rel. v. Systems Corp. Datacom (1991), 146 Ill. 2d 57.) 585 N.E.2d The of section language Code, 401 of the “Except as 401.2” provided section Stat., 1988 ch. 561/2, 1401), given must also be effect. The term “except” (Ballentine’s has been defined as: “Other than.” Law Dictionary 1969); ed. аlso (3d (5th see Black’s Law Dictionary 1979).) context, phrase incorporated penalty provisions In ed. of section 401.2. of language defined the offense manufacture designated
and delivery, and the class of felony attaching to commis sion of the varying offense based on amounts enumerated sub stances; these, sentencing as to ranges stated in section 5—8—1 (see the Code Stat. 1989, adhere pars. 1005—8— 1(a)(3) through (a)(6)). Section was upon based the offense of manufacture or delivery as defined opening paragraph sec tion sentencing and but delineated the increаsed ranges applica on committing ble based the offense as to greater quantities drugs. The enhanced penalties provided 401.1(b) the of apply to fenses contained in both sections 401 and 401.2.
Defendant’s contention a untenable; that section 401.1 is is nullity prohibition both a provided and defendant penalty, prop- convicted thereunder. erly Judge’s Question
III. Defendant contends that trial er- judge committed reversible ror when he witness, asked of a question key State’s thus abdicat- his an ing assuming neutral role and the role of advocate. dis- We agree.
Witness Jameson testified
was cross-examined. At the conclu-
sion
this
asked
Li-
questioning,
judge
Joseph
Jameson: “[The]
to,
you
berman that
referred
is that the Defendant
this case?” The
asked no
made
comments.
judge
questions
other
no other
in or
witnesses
right
question
has
judge
that a
It is clear
29 Ill. 2d
Hopkins
v.
(1963),
(People
the truth.
to elicit
der
bring
a witness
question
also
A
213, 216.)
judge may
194 N.E.2d
fair and
in a
as this
done
issues,
long
material
enlightenment
either
against
prejudice
showing bias
manner without
impartial
534, 537.
450, 111 N.E.2d
414 Ill.
v. Marino
(1953),
party. People
*9
have assumed
found to
the
has been
judge
In the cases wherein
far exceeded
impropriety
advocate,
the
aсts
judge’s
the role of an
People
primarily
relies
Defendant
here.
posed
the single question
re R.S.
692, and In
1048,
N.E.2d
293
9 Ill.
3d
v. Cofield
(1973),
App.
grounds
on other
139,
698, 453 N.E.2d
3d
(1983),
App.
aff'd
297. How
N.E.2d
1,
Ill. 2d
v. R.S.
People
sub nom.
(1984),
calling
a judge
involve
they
as
ever,
distinguishable,
are
both cases
at
App.
9 Ill.
3d
lying (Cofield,
accusing
witnesses
witnesses
who was
calling a witness
693),
judge
and a
1049-50, 293 N.E.2d at
a previous
from
having
information
witness list
party’s
on neither
704,
143).
453 N.E.2d at
(R.S.,
117 Ill.
3d at
App.
case
“Joseph
clarify
to
merely attempted
The trial judge
was
fact
testimony
to in her
Jameson referred
Liberman”
be
person
defendant
not
identify
defendant.
Jameson could
examina
in absentia.
judicial
The
propriety
cause the trial was
case. (Cofield,
of each
the circumstances
tion must be determined
may question
A trial
694.)
judge
at
3d at
293 N.E.2d
App.
(Hop
testimony.
in a
fill certain
witness’
clarify
gaps
witness to
clarification
kins,
216.)
judge’s
The
at
IV. of defend- description next maintains that Jameson’s Defendant drug dealing of defendant’s description and her ant’s violent acts amount to error. reversible operandi, modus prove of other crimes is admissible
Evidence
McKibbins
v.
(People
motive,
of mistake.
intent,
or absence
identity,
However,
list
this
821, 824.)
176, 182, 449 N.E.2d
96 Ill. 2d
(1983),
these are
mean that
or taken to
as exclusive
should not be considered
be admitted.
crimes may
of other
testimony
for
only purposes
which
(P
61-62,
N.E.2d
v.
105 Ill. 2d
eople
Stewart
(1984),
is relevant
if it
crimes is admissible
Instead, evidence of other
860.)
crime.
to commit
the propensity
other than to show
any purpose
for
has rec
This court
824.)
at
(McKibbins,
V. argues Defendant next erred in considering court as an aggra vating his sentencing factor conduct was the type which could have harm person (Ill. caused serious to another 38, par. 5—3.2(a)(1)),a factor inherent in the offense. It is con 1005— tended potential that there was no evidence of any harm or harm beyond that which it is the legislature reasonable conclude that had taken into already consideration for the establishing crime. The indicates that original sentencing record at hearing judge did not consider this an aggravating only factor. statement at the original sentencing which is to this er hearing alleged relevant ror is as follows: *** “THE COURT: Liberman,
Mr. do have you anything you desire to state *10 to the Court at this time other than what stated you’ve before? No, Honor,
THE Your DEFENDANT: I don’t. THE I think COURT: don’t this is a for the case minimum of 18 years, upon go- sentence based his record. prior I’ve been through ing the factors are in I’m mitigation. that looking at mitigation factor in [sic], 5—553.12 the Defendant did not con- template that his conduct criminal would cause or threaten seri- Well, ous harm to physical another. there could be argument the made that sale of cocaine could result serious physical another, harm to but I know that don’t this Defendant can be charged that with knowledge necessarily.” At subsequent the the reduce hearing sentence, motion to the judge following made the statement:
“The activities that preceded upon conduct which this based, charge was the Defendant—the evidence was that time Defendant admitted at one that he and had was been selling business cocaine I do recall this state. that there some I was some domestic testimony concerning quarrel, don’t recall any whether there violence associated with time, not at this but fact that there was no physical vio- fact from the detract doesn’t the Defendant by committed lence the dis- by to others for harm great potential he created addicts, pos- to first users harm drug, harm of this tribution recipients to who the is no evidence there although sibly, to in- reasonable were, certainly drug of the distribution of cocaine to the use addicted that were for persons fer that to be- opportunity had an not have may and to who persons dis- reason by addicted but could become come addicted con- through made possible to them drug of this tribution Defendant.” duct of the the motion-to- at statement judge’s
However, apparent it is affidavit, which to defendant’s hearing part related in reduce-sentence by any were suffered injuries that “no physical a statement included of this activity.” as a result party at the comments judge’s with the find no fault whatsoever
We hearing included evidence sentencing That hearing. sentencing the sentence. justified factors which aggravating other many the of indicated hearing clearly at the motion-to-reduce comments might use those who physical injury by result ultimately fense could explanation as an given The comments were the controlled substance. and not as of no injury defendant’s statement rejecting for explicitly determined already that had been factor of a sentence aggravating an 3d App. Adams People (1988), at a See v. prior hearing. 185 Ill. 3d 819, 821; (1989), App. Mounson People v. 522 N.E.2d 834, 839. 38-39, 540 N.E.2d possi the 80-year trial was well below judge The sentence maximum of discre and was not an abuse imprisonment term of ble 516, 526-27, N.E.2d 2d (1986), v. Ward 113 Ill. People tion. See 422, 425-26. reаsons, affirm. foregoing
For the we
Affirmed.
GREEN, P.J., concurs. STEIGMANN, concurring: specially
JUSTICE decision, spe I write agree majority’s I Although fully legis with which frequency concern express my about cially *11 (Act) Act Substances lature amended the Illinois Controlled has 561/2, 1989, par. ch. Act Rev. Stat. (CCA) Control Cannabis other in the future when to call for some restraint seq.) 701 et proposed. amendments are has fol years,
In the last 41/2 enacted the Assembly General lowing 27 substantive amendments the Act and CCA: 140, 1007): Ill. (1987 Public Act Laws amended sections §1 85— 1985, (amending 561/2, 204 and 206 of the Act Ill. ch. Rev. Stat. pars. 1204,1206). 537, (1987 Public Act Ill. Laws added 406.1 2356): §1 85— 1987, 561/2, the Act Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. (see par. 1406.1). 616, Public Ill. (1987 2700): Act Laws amended section 407 §1 85— 1985,
of the Act (amending 561/2,pаr. 1407). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 743, (1987 3160, 3164): Public Act Ill. Laws added section §2 85— 1987, (see 561/2,par. to the Act Ill. Rev. ch. 1401.1). Stat. 948, 4133): Ill. (1987 multiple Public Act Laws amended §1 85— sections of the Act. 1003, 4710, 4716):
Public Act Ill. (1987 Laws amended §3 85— of and multiple multiple sections added sections to Act. Act Laws (1988 200): attempted
Public 85—1030 Ill. undo erro portions neous of Public Act 85—1003. 1260, 2553):
Public Act Ill. Laws amended various (1988 §1 85— sections of Act. 1280, 2650): Public Ill. amended (1988 Act Laws §1 85— Stat., (see 561/2,
102 of the Ill. ch. par. 1102) Act Rev. Supp., (text 1,1988). eff. July 1287, 2667, Public Act Ill. Laws sec (1988 2671): amended §3 85— 1987,
tion 406 of Act Ill. 561/2, par. Rev. Stat. ch. (amending 1406) . 1294, 2690): (1988 Public Act Ill. Laws amended section §1 85— 1987, 561/2, 1401.1).
401.1 of Stat. (amending par. the Act Ill. Rev. ch. 1388, Ill. (1988 3204, 3208): Public Act Laws added section §3 85— 561/2, Stat., 5.1 to the Ill. (seе Supp., par. 705.1). CCA ch. 265, Ill. (1989 1891): Public Act Laws amended section 410 §1 86— (amending par. 1410). Act Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. Public Laws sec (1989 1893): Act 86—266 Ill. amended various tions and two sections of the Act. repealed 3295): (1989
Public Act Laws amended various §1 86— sections of the Act. (1989
Public Act Ill. Laws amended section 3441): §1 86— Stat., 56x/2, of the Act ch. (amending par. 1312). Public Act Ill. Laws added section 405.1 (1989 4251): §2 86— 1405.1). to the (see Act Ill. Rev. Stat. sec (1989 5667, 5673): Public Act Ill. Laws amended §3 86— 561/2, par. tion 407 of Ill. Rev. (amending 1407). *12 2877, 2884): amended Ill. Laws 1382, (1990 Act Public §15 86— 561/2, 1989, par. Stat. ch. Rev. (amending 12 of the CCA Ill.
section 712). 2957): 1391, Laws amended (1990 Ill. Public Act §1 86— 561/2, 1401.1). 1989, par. (see Act Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.
401.1 of the 3437, 3441): added sec 86-1459, Laws (1990 Act Ill. Public §13 561/2, Stat., 1990 ch. par. Rev. (see Supp., tion to the Act Ill. 407.2 407.2). 2416, amended sec 466, 2422): Ill. (1991 Act Laws Public §13 87— 561/2, 1989, ch. par. Ill. (amending
tion of the Act 1409). 2611, 2618): amended sec 524, (1991 Act Ill. Laws Public §3 87— 561/2, 1989, par.
tion the Act Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. (amending 407 of 1407). 2730, 544, (1991 2734): Laws added section Act Ill. Public §9 87— to the CCA. 3061, 3066): amended sec 614, (1991 Act Ill. Laws Public §4 87— Stat.,
tion Act ch. (amending 505 of the par. 1505). 3943, 754, (1991 3945): Act Ill. Laws amended sec Public §2 87— 102, 208, 308, 312, 401, 402, 405, 407, 407.2, 410,
tions and 411 of 1989, 1102, 1208, 1308, the (see pars. Rev. Stat. 1312, 1402, 1405, 1411; Stat., Ill. Rev. 1990 Supp., 56V2, 1407.2). 87-772, §§2, (1991 4132):
Public Act Ill. Laws added section 411.2 of the Act and 10.3 of the CCA. the reveals not without its legislative frenzy above list is
costs. legislature Those costs include errors committed when it deprives legislative normally itself deliberation accorded patient proрosals Acts all of (see Public and 85— 85— 85— which case). are discussed in the this Other costs majority’s opinion and frequent changes engen- include the confusion these uncertainty enforcing der in the who have prosecutors police duty drug Furthermore, great- so laws. because the stakes involved are persons violating drug laws are sentenced to frequently convicted attorneys penitentiary lengthy periods of time —defense work that legislative oversight to find some or will diligently loophole charged violating thwart criminal prosecutions defendants argue, drug legislative find some flaw to attorneys laws. When weigh arguments very courts must such consistent with carefully, their to ensure the crimi- persons that accused crime receive duty nal rights they due to which are entitled. process costs,
Given from legislative these benefits derived all this ac tivity carefully should be assessed. My unper assessment leaves me instance, that all activity justified. suaded this For I that any doubt one could seriously argue prior legislature to had not enough reflecting laws this passed policy criminalizing State’s seriously punishing drug trafficking possession. unlawful I further substantive amendments doubt this State needed an additional to its last drug yеars laws 41/2 to pro further policy tect its citizens. remarks,
By these I do not mean to any particular criticize enact- above; on the ment list set forth nor I legisla- do mean criticize the reviewing ture from carefully drug laws time to time see “some tuckpointing” might whether of these In- appropriate. laws *13 stead, I am legisla- concerned about the volume frequency such changes, tive and I reflect they believe do not the calm delibera- ought tion that process. be the hallmark of the legislative ILLINOIS, THE STATE Plaintiff-Appellee, PEOPLE OF THE OF v. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. REGINALD District Fourth No. 4 — 91—0466 Opinion 10, 1992. May filed 14, 1992. Rehearing denied June