United States v. Sawyer
| Decision Date | 15 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 11119.,11119. |
| Citation | 210 F.2d 169 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SAWYER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Henry A. Wise, Jr., Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
Michael A. Poppiti, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., for appellee.
Before KALODNER, STALEY, and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
The appellant Sawyer was convicted by a jury under an indictment charging him with the unlawful selling of a quantity of heroin. The purchaser was a federal narcotics agent in search of evidence of dope peddling. On this appeal Sawyer claims that the trial judge committed reversible error in refusing to include certain points in his charge. More particularly he says that the court erred in denying a defense request that the court explain to the jury, in relation to conflicting evidence of what happened in this case, the difference in fact and in law between dealing with a purchaser as seller and acting for him as a procuring agent. He also says that the evidence created an issue of fact concerning entrapment which the court refused to mention in any way in its charge.
To determine whether there was occasion to charge the jury on these points we must see what circumstances the jury might have found, resolving all conflicts in testimony in favor of the defense. There was evidence that defendant and a companion were walking along a Wilmington street at about 5:30 p. m. on their way home from the plant where they both were employed. They passed a parked automobile in which a stranger sat talking to an acquaintance of theirs who was standing on the sidewalk. The stranger called Sawyer over to the car and asked "Can you get me some horse", the word "horse" being a slang expression for heroin. Sawyer remonstrated that he had a job and was not doing that sort of thing. The stranger repeated his request urging that he was "sick". But Sawyer and his companion left him and continued on their way. After they had walked a short distance the same two men intercepted them again. This time the stranger feigned a dramatic and violent seizure and begged Sawyer to get him something to relieve his distress. Sawyer, moved by this apparent suffering and knowing where heroin could be purchased, took twenty dollars as then proffered, went to a nearby hotel, purchased some heroin for twenty dollars and brought it back and gave it to the stranger. While prosecution witnesses told a different and perhaps more credible story, the jury might have credited the above outlined account.
In these circumstances, we think the court should at least have pointed out to the jury that if they believed that the federal agent asked the defendant to get some heroin for him and thereupon the defendant undertook to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hecht
...intent to deliver under the corresponding Wisconsin statutes. However, it is clear to us that Moses and its precursor, United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir.1954), were decided prior to the 1970 enactment of the federal "Controlled Substances Act," which appears at 21 U.S.C.A. § 80......
-
People v. Lam Lek Chong
...N.Y.S.2d 112). The rule was later adopted by the Federal courts as applicable to illegal alcohol and drug transactions (United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (3 Cir.); United States v. Moses, 220 F.2d 166 (3 Cir.); but see United States v. Pruitt, 487 F.2d 1241 (8 Cir.)). In this State it h......
-
People v. Roche
...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 v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 147, n.......
-
United States v. Masullo
...agent for the buyer he is a principal in or is conspiring in the purchase rather than the sale of the contraband. United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169, 170 (3d Cir. 1954). See also Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 337 F.2d 541, 543-544 (1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 920, 85 S.......
-
New Techniques in Defending Drug Cases
...and compare Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, Section 1(10). The Colorado statute is C.R.S. 1973, § 12-22-301(25). 5. United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1954); Jackson v. United States, 311 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1963); Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1959); Cornfield v......