## Facts

- A suspicious package at the Macomb, Illinois post office was opened in the presence of law enforcement; inside a hollowed-out, glued book were about 140 tablets that tested as LSD.
- The package had no return address and was addressed to “Gary Lang, c/o Jeffrey Ackerman, 916 Henninger, Macomb, Illinois,” a university dormitory room occupied by Jeffrey Michael Ackerman; no student named Gary Lang was registered.
- The package was rewrapped and delivered through ordinary dormitory mail procedures under surveillance by law enforcement officers.
- Ackerman arrived at the dormitory, retrieved a notice from his mailbox, presented it at the package counter, signed for the package, placed it under his arm, and walked a short distance toward an elevator.
- Officers stopped and arrested Ackerman and seized the package.
- Ackerman testified he did not know what the package contained, did not order it, and did not know anyone named Gary Lang.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ackerman knowingly possessed the LSD contained in the mailed package.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the conviction.
- The court held the State failed to prove the element of knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court relied on evidentiary insufficiency, not on search-and-seizure or postal-inspection grounds.

## Legal Principles

- To convict for unlawful possession of narcotics, the State must prove both possession and knowledge of the presence and illicit nature of the substance.
- Knowledge may be shown by circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances must reasonably support an inference of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Mere receipt and brief physical custody of a mailed package, without additional incriminating evidence, does not alone permit an inference of knowing possession.
- Circumstantial proof must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

## Conclusion

The court reversed because Ackerman’s routine acceptance and momentary custody of a package addressed “care of” him, without evidence he ordered it, knew the named addressee, or otherwise connected to the sender or drugs, was insufficient to establish knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.


People v. Ackerman, 274 N.E.2d 125 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)