## Facts

- Stephen Steele was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County under Ill. Rev. Stat. 1959, ch. 38, ¶ 192.28‑38 for offering to unlawfully sell a narcotic drug and then unlawfully selling a “purported narcotic drug” to John Stribling, Jr.
- Steele waived a jury and was tried before a judge.
- Robert Jackson, working with narcotics agents, testified that about two weeks before December 11, 1958, Steele told Jackson he could buy narcotics from Steele and gave him a phone number.
- On December 11, 1958, Jackson telephoned Steele while several agents were present and told him he wanted to buy an ounce of raw heroin; Steele quoted a price of $400 and arranged a meeting.
- Federal narcotics agent Joseph Dino, Jr. listened to the telephone call on an extension and corroborated Jackson’s account.
- Jackson went to the arranged meeting with state narcotics agent John Stribling, Jr.
- At the meeting, Steele questioned Stribling’s presence; Jackson responded that Stribling was “all right” and then “stepped out of the picture” while Stribling and Steele completed the deal.
- Stribling paid Steele with a roll of bills (with recorded serial numbers) and received a small paper-wrapped package.
- A field test and later chemical analysis showed the package contained quinine hydrochloride, not a narcotic.
- Stribling testified that during the transaction he asked about the quality of the “heroin,” and Steele reassured him about it.
- After Steele’s arrest, Stribling testified Steele denied dealing in narcotics but remarked: “When you find a sucker, bump his head.”
- Over Steele’s objection, Jackson testified that he had previously purchased narcotics from Steele before the charged transaction.
- Steele’s defense was that he sold quinine (not narcotics), claimed it related to Jackson’s illness, and argued the State failed to prove an offer to sell narcotics to Stribling; he also argued the prior-dealings testimony was improper other-crimes evidence.
- The trial court found Steele guilty and sentenced him to the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than six years.
- Steele sought review by writ of error in the Supreme Court of Illinois.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Steele offered to unlawfully sell a narcotic drug and then sold a “purported narcotic drug” to Stribling as charged.
2. Whether Jackson’s testimony about prior narcotics purchases from Steele was improperly admitted as evidence of other crimes offered only to show Steele’s criminal disposition.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the trier of fact to find that Steele offered heroin and then consummated that offer by selling Stribling a substance represented as heroin, even though it was actually quinine hydrochloride.
- The court held Jackson’s testimony about prior narcotics transactions with Steele was properly admitted because it bore on deceit and intent in a prosecution that had fraud-like elements, not merely on bad character.

## Legal Principles

- A statute criminalizing an offer to sell a narcotic drug followed by the sale of a “purported narcotic drug” is satisfied when the defendant represents the substance as a narcotic and takes payment, even if the substance is not a narcotic.
- An offer made in arranging a narcotics sale may be treated as extending to the eventual purchaser when the defendant proceeds with the deal after an intermediary introduces the purchaser and the defendant completes the exchange with that purchaser.
- Evidence of other crimes is generally inadmissible when offered only to show a defendant’s disposition to commit crime.
- Evidence of prior similar transactions may be admitted when it is relevant to a material issue such as intent, design, knowledge, or deceit—especially where the charged offense includes a confidence-game or misrepresentation component.
- In a case involving the sale of a non-narcotic as a narcotic, prior dealings with the same intermediary may be admissible to show how the defendant induced trust and to support an inference that the defendant knowingly misrepresented the substance.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court left Steele’s conviction in place because the State’s proof supported findings that he arranged a heroin sale, completed the transaction with the undercover agent, and represented the package as heroin despite it being quinine hydrochloride; the court also concluded that testimony about Steele’s earlier narcotics dealings with the informer was admissible to show intent and deceit rather than to prove mere propensity.


People v. Steele, 174 N.E.2d 848 (1961)