Roy v. State
Decision Date | 02 November 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 6345,6345 |
Citation | 87 Nev. 517,489 P.2d 1158 |
Parties | Richard Charles ROY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Harry E. Claiborne and Annette R. Quintana, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Roy A. Woofter, Dist. Atty. and Charles L. Garner, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
The appellant, a 22-year-old mentally retarded bus boy, able neither to read nor write, purchased a 'lid' of marijuana for an undercover police officer who pretended interest in him and friendship for him. Convicted of the nonprobationable offense of selling marijuana in violation of NRS 453.030 and NRS 453.210(2), sentenced to prison for four years, appellant assigns as error the trial court's refusal to give the following instruction:
'If you believe that Police Officer R. Baggett asked the defendant to get some marijuana for him and that the defendant thereupon undertook to act in behalf of Police Officer Baggett rather than on defendant's own behalf, and in so doing, purchased the marijuana from a third person with whom the defendant was not associated in selling marijuana, and that defendant thereafter delivered the marijuana to Police Officer Baggett, the defendant is not a seller and cannot be convicted of the offense of selling marijuana.'
Where the evidence does not foreclose it, the pertinent authorities establish that such an instruction must be given. Appellant's counsel carefully couched the proffered instruction in language faithfully following that approved in a long line of federal authorites, e.g.: United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1954); Adams v. United States, 220 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1955); Bruno v. United States, 259 F.2d 8 (9th Cir. 1958); United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959); Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 337 F.2d 541 (1964), the latter opinion being delivered by Chief Justice Burger when he was a circuit judge. The propriety of such an instruction is also generally supported by numerous other authorities, e.g.: Durham v. State, 280 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1955); People v. Buster, 286 App.Div. 1141, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437 (1955); Townsel v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 286 S.W.2d 162 (1956); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958); People v. Branch, 13 A.D.2d 714, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535 (1961); People v. Lindsey, 12 N.Y.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956, 189 N.E.2d 492 (1963); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); People v. Hingerton, 27 A.D.2d 574, 277 N.Y.S.2d 754 (1967). Indeed, it may even be contended appellant might have requested a stronger instruction, cf. Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965).
Still, as a possible ground for distinguishing these authorities, the State notes that in most cases the actual seller was joined as a defendant along with the person involved as the buyer's agent. Of course, such a distinction is without substance, for the criminality of one person's acts cannot rationally depend on whether the State decides to prosecute another.
The State also suggests our decisions in Glosen v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 145, 451 P.2d 841 (1969), and Glosen v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 166, 451 P.2d 843 (1969), establish our law contrary to what decisions of other courts quite uniformly establish as the law elsewhere. This patently is not so. In the Glosen cases, habeas corpus matters concerned merely with probable cause to hold for trial, this court held one who traffics in narcotics by assisting a seller may be found guilty of a 'sale,' although he takes no profit from the transaction. We did not hold, as the State would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. State
...1. Appellant's defense was (1) entrapment and (2) that he was simply the procurer for the undercover agents, See Roy v. State, 87 Nev. 517, 489 P.2d 1158 (1971). In rebuttal of these defenses, the prosecution was permitted to call a minor, who testified that he had purchased a marijuana cig......
-
State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne
...attorney, without charge, to numerous indigent defendants whose legal problems stirred his compassion. 294 See, e.g., Roy v. State, 87 Nev. 517, 489 P.2d 1158 (1971) (respondent Claiborne successfully prosecuted appeal of mentally retarded defendant employed as a busboy who had been convict......
-
People v. Roche
...S.W.2d 198 (Ky.) (semble); Snead v. State, 234 Md. 63, 197 A.2d 920; Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452, 253 N.E.2d 346; Roy v. State, 87 Nev. 517, 489 P.2d 1158; Jones v. State, 481 P.2d 169 (Okl.Cr.); State v. Buchanan, 8 Or.App. 150, 493 P.2d 184 (semble); Commonwealth v. Simione, 44......
-
State v. Allen
...277 N.Y.S.2d 754; Commonwealth v. Harvard, 1969, 356 Mass. 452, 253 N.E.2d 346; Jones v. State, 1971, Okl.Cr., 481 P.2d 169; Roy v. State, 1971, Nev., 489 P.2d 1158.4 United States v. Barcella, 1 Cir., 1970, 432 F.2d 570; United States v. Winfield, 2 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 70; United States v......
-
New Techniques in Defending Drug Cases
...98 (4th Dept. 1953), aff'd 306 N.Y. 759, 118 N.E.2d 361 (1963); People v. Fortes, 24 App. Div. 2d 428, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965). 16. 489 P.2d 1158 (Nev. 1971). 17. Id. 18. Id. at 1159. 19. See N.R.S. 453.020(2)(16). 20. 507 P.2d 576 (Okla. 1973). 21. Id. at 578. 22. 630.S 1961, § 401. 23. By......