Com. v. Noons
Decision Date | 28 March 1974 |
Citation | 2 Mass.App.Ct. 814,308 N.E.2d 915 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Robert F. NOONS. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Harvey M. Pullman, Boston, for defendant.
Donald P. Zerendow, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before HALE, C.J., and KEVILLE and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
After trial before a judge sitting without jury in proceedings conducted under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G, the defendant was convicted of knowingly and intentionally distributing a controlled substance, heroin. G.L. c. 94C, § 32, as inserted by St.1971, c. 1071, § 1. The only error assigned by the defendant is the denial of his motion for a finding of not guilty at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case. The Commonwealth does not contend that the defendant personally made physical delivery of the heroin the the undercover officer but argues that the defendant's participation in the entire transaction warrants his conviction as an accessory to the commission of the substantive offense. A defendant may be convicted as a principal on proof that he counselled, hired, or otherwise procured the crime to be committed. G.L. c. 274, § 2, St.1968, c. 206, § 1. Commonwealth v. Perry,357 Mass. 149, 151, 256 N.E.2d 745 (1970). Although the defendant's knowledge and presence alone do not constitute 'counselling, hiring, or . . . procuring' (see Commonwealth v. DiStasio, 297 Mass. 347, 364, 8 N.E.2d 923 (1937); COMMONWEALTH V. SPINA, MASS.APP., 294 N.E.2D 447),A his association with a criminal venture coupled with any significant participation in it will support a conviction. Commonwealth v. French, 357 Mass. 356, 391, 259 N.E.2d 195 (1970), and cases cited. COMMONWEALTH V. MORROW, MASS., 296 N.E.2D 468.B Viewing the evidence most favorably to the Commonwealth (COMMONWEALTH V. BURNS, MASS., 289 N.E.2D 836),C we hold that it was sufficient to warrant conviction. The defendant's invitation to the officer to 'cop' heroin solicited the officer to enter into the transaction in whih the defendant participated in its entirety. The defendant's aid in the preparation of the heroin and his words 'we'll take our share and you can have yours' immediately prior to the distribution of heroin to the officer signify the status of a participant rather than that of a knowing spectator. United States v. Martinez, 479 F.2d 824, 829--830 (1st Cir. 1973). See also COMMONWEALTH V. MURPHY, MASS.APP., 294 N.E.2D 558.D The case of Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452, 253 N.E.2d 346 (1969), relied upon by the defendant, is distinguishable from the case before us in that the conviction there reversed was for selling narcotics, not distributing them. Indeed, the court implied that if the defendant there had been charged with delivery...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Vasquez
...acted as an intermediary to a drug transaction is sufficient to prove guilt on a distribution charge. Commonwealth v. Noons, 2 Mass. App.Ct. 814, 814-815, 308 N.E.2d 915 (1974). The defendant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of constructive possession. C......
-
Hill v. State
...statute relating to drugs or controlled substances. Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452, 253 N.E.2d 346 (1969) and Commonwealth v. Noons, 308 N.E.2d 915 (Mass.App. 1974). The distinction is compacted in Noons, wherein a conviction for "distributing" was " . . . The case of Commonwealth v......
-
Tipton v. State
...United States v. Johnson, 481 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Hernandez, 480 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1973); Commonwealth v. Noons, Mass.App., 308 N.E.2d 915 (1974); cf. Wood v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 97, 197 S.E.2d 200 We are in accord with the reasoning of those decisions and hold th......
-
Com. v. Mendoza
...thereby unlocking a door which led to the second floor, where the officer bought heroin from the principal. See Commonwealth v. Noons, 2 Mass.App. 814, 308 N.E.2d 915 (1974). See also Commonwealth v. Sitko, 372 Mass. 305, 310, 361 N.E.2d 1258 (1977). We thus think that the jury could proper......