State v. Enriquez
Decision Date | 24 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 2419,2419 |
Citation | 109 Ariz. 570,514 P.2d 491 |
Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Hector R. ENRIQUEZ, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Thomas A. Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment by the court sitting without a jury finding the defendant guilty of the crime of offering to sell a narcotic drug, § 36--1002.02 A.R.S. Imposition of sentence was suspended for a period of five years.
We must consider only one question on appeal and that is: Do the facts support a finding of intent to sell a narcotic drug?
The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. Michael Bertocchi, an employee of the Department of Public Safety, and an informer, were in Tempe at George Street and Maryland on 17 December 1970 when Hector Enriquez approached them and asked if they wanted to buy some heroin. Enriquez told them to return later. At 6:30 p.m., Enriquez drove up and asked Bertocchi if he wanted to buy 15 'papers' to which Bertocchi answered, 'yes.' Bertocchi was told to meet him at a bar in a half hour. Enriquez and another man returned in a half hour and, as requested, Bertocchi got into the car with the defendant. Enriquez handed him a needle stating, 'Here is a clean one for you to try it.' Bertocchi asked Enriquez if he had the stuff, to which Enriquez replied 'yes.' He had 17 'papers' on him. He patted his left top pocket and stated, 'Here is the paper that you can try,' and pulled out of his right top pocket one tin foil packet. Bertocchi grabbed for the paper, but Enriquez would not let him have it until he agreed to give them $10 before trying it. Bertocchi agreed to pay the $10 and try the paper after driving around the corner in Enriquez's car. As Enriquez entered the car, Bertocchi signaled for the other agents to close in and attempted to grab the foil packet from Enriquez, but Enriquez swallowed the packet he had in his hands, stating, 'I just swallowed it.' Bertocchi reached into his pockets for the other packets as Enriquez said: Enriquez was arrested. The swallowed packet was not recovered and the remaining packets did not contain any illegal narcotic drugs.
Our statute reads:
§ 36--1002.02 subsec. A, A.R.S. (Emphasis added)
This statute is identical to § 11501 (renumbered § 11352, as amended 1972) of the California Health and Safety Code. The California Supreme Court in upholding a conviction for offering to sell narcotics under their statute stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Lawson
...consummate the sale.' 1 This interpretation has been given similar statutes by courts in Arizona and California (See, State v. Enriquez, 109 Ariz. 570, 514 P.2d 491 (1973); State v. Espinosa, 101 Ariz. 474, 421 P.2d 1 (1963); People v. Jackson, 59 Cal.2d 468, 381 P.2d 1 (1963); People v. Br......
- State v. McCline
-
State v. Werner, 54603
...person of offering to sell a controlled drug. See e.g., People v. Lawson, 84 Misc.2d 24, 27, 374 N.Y.S.2d 270 (1975); State v. Enriquez, 109 Ariz. 570, 514 P.2d 491 (1973); People v. Jackson, 59 Cal.2d 468, 30 Cal.Rptr. 329, 381 P.2d 1 (1963); Shanks v. Commonwealth, 463 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Ky......
-
State v. Douglas, s. 2
...agents. If appellants knew their offer was false, the requisite intent to sell a narcotic drug would be lacking. State v. Enriquez, 109 Ariz. 570, 514 P.2d 491 (1973). The jury apparently concluded that appellants intended to sell heroin. Appellant Hutton claims there was insufficient evide......