Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. RALPH REDWOOD, APPELLANT.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the "procuring agent" or "purchasing agent" theory was a valid defense to the criminal charge of unlawful distribution of heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

Appellant argues that he was acting solely on behalf of the purchaser and thus not within the proscription of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

Appellant correctly observes that under prior law a person could not be convicted of "selling" narcotics if he were acting solely on behalf of the purchaser. United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1964). Under the present law, however, the conduct proscribed is "distribution" rather than "sale" of a controlled substance. We believe that this change of language clearly precludes the use of the "procuring agent" or "purchasing agent" defense. Accord, United States v. Johnson, 481 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Hernandez, 480 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Workopich, 479 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1973).

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

The act defines "distribute" to mean "to deliver . . . a controlled substance" and defines "deliver" as the "transfer of a controlled substance, whether or not there exists an agency relationship." 21 U.S.C. § 802(8), (11) (emphasis added).

The order of the district court will be affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

UNITED STATES v. REDWOOD
(Feb 5, 1974)