United States v. Barcella, 7612.

Decision Date14 October 1970
Docket NumberNo. 7612.,7612.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert E. BARCELLA, Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Joseph S. Oteri, Boston, Mass., by appointment of Court, with whom Kevin M. Keating and Crane, Inker & Oteri, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellant.

James B. Krasnoo, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.

ALDRICH, Chief Judge.

The defendant was charged with selling heroin without receipt of the written order required by 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). See U. S. v. Davidson, 1 Cir., 1970, 428 F.2d 461. On this appeal his principal contention is that the court should have acquitted him because, as a matter of law, in going to a source of supply and obtaining twenty-five packs of the drug for a government agent, who reimbursed him and permitted him to retain two for himself, defendant acted as a "procuring agent" of, rather than a seller to, the government representative, and hence did not violate the act. The court, instead, submitted the case to the jury with instructions that if it found facts making this principle applicable it should acquit. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and this appeal followed.

The procuring agent theory is new to this circuit. So far as we can discover, it was initiated in United States v. Sawyer, 3 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 169, and now appears to be accepted in a majority of the circuits. See United States v. Winfield, 2 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 70 (dictum); Myers v. United States, 8 Cir., 1964, 337 F.2d 22 (dictum); United States v. Sizer, 4 Cir., 1961, 292 F.2d 596 (dictum); Vasquez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 897 (dictum); Kelley v. United States, 1960, 107 U.S. App.D.C. 122, 275 F.2d 10; Adams v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 297. In essence the theory is that if the defendant, in procuring the drugs and delivering them to the recipient, acted solely as the agent of the recipient, and in no other capacity, then the delivery was the transfer by an agent to his principal of what already belonged to the principal and hence did not involve a sale, barter, exchange or gift to which section 4705(a) applies.

We must agree that one who is strictly an agent of a buyer is not in violation of section 4705 when he delivers the drugs to the buyer without obtaining an order form. At the same time, if he is playing any other role in the transaction, either as an alternative or in addition to his role as agent for the buyer, the defense is not available. One who acts as a principal by buying from the supplier and selling to the buyer, or as a co-principal by joining the supplier in selling to the buyer, or as an agent of the supplier by effecting the supplier's sale to the buyer, is under a duty to make the sale pursuant to a written order form, even if he is also the buyer's agent. United States v. Winfield, ante, 341 F.2d at 71-72 (co-principal with supplier); Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 311 F.2d 686, 690, cert. denied 374 U.S. 850, 83 S.Ct. 1913, 10 L.Ed.2d 1070 (agent of supplier). On our examination of the record in the case at bar there was no error. Rarely could it be ruled as matter of law that a go-between was acting solely as a procuring agent. It may be that Commonwealth v. Harvard, 1969 Mass. A.S. 1341, 253 N.E.2d 346, constituted such an extreme case. In any event the facts at bar are clearly distinguishable. Even as to the sale in which defendant was not shown to receive a commission the jury could infer that he retained or received a portion of the sales price as a profit or commission from the supplier.

Returning to the decided cases it may be observed that assertion of the procuring agent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • People v. Roche
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1978
    ...app. dsmd. 17 N.Y.2d 583, 268 N.Y.S.2d 341, 215 N.E.2d 519). Although often raised together with entrapment (e. g., United States v. Barcella, 1 Cir., 432 F.2d 570, 572; United States v. Sawyer, 3 Cir., 210 F.2d 169; Note, 22 Kan.L.Rev. 272, 276), agency is not an affirmative defense (Lewis......
  • People v. Sierra
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1978
    ...or that to which he is entitled, there being no sale, exchange, gift or disposal of the drugs to the recipient (See United States v. Barcella, 2 Cir., 432 F.2d 570, 571; see, also, Penal Law, § 220.00, subd. 1; People v. Pasquarello, 282 App.Div. 405, 123 N.Y.S.2d 98, affd. 306 N.Y. 759, 11......
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1972
    ...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. Sawyer, 3 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 169; United Stat......
  • State v. Latina
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1984
    ...P.2d 345; Commonwealth v. Harvard (Mass.1969) , 253 N.E.2d 346; Smith v. State (Tex. [Cr.App.] 1965), 396 S.W.2d 876; United States v. Barcella (C.A.1, 1970), 432 F.2d 570; United States v. Winfield (C.A.2, 1965), 341 F.2d 70; Myers v. United States (C.A.8, 1964), 337 F.2d 22; United States......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT