Commonwealth v. White

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. White

652 N.E.2d 634, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 987, 1995 Mass. App. LEXIS 510

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJuly 26, 1995

DocketNo. 94-P-1407

StatusPublished

This text of 652 N.E.2d 634 (Commonwealth v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. White, 652 N.E.2d 634, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 987, 1995 Mass. App. LEXIS 510 (Mass. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence that the defendant was a friend of the sellers, that she directed the buyer (an undercover police officer) to the sellers, accompanied him to their apartment, and remained while the sale of cocaine was being made, coupled with the evidence that she expected to be paid for her role in the transaction (although she received nothing and had no agreement to receive anything from the buyer) justify an inference that the defendant was “associated with the illegal sale and had a ‘significant participation in it,’ ” Commonwealth v. Mendoza, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 919 (1979), quoting from Commonwealth v. Morrow, 363 Mass. 601, 609 (1973). Thus, the motion for a required finding of not guilty was properly denied.

We need not consider, therefore, the Commonwealth’s contention that the defendant, even if shown to be only a procurring agent for the buyer, could nevertheless be found guilty under an indictment, such as this one, charging distribution, as contrasted with an indictment charging sale. Compare Commonwealth v. Noons, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 814, 815 (1974), and Commonwealth v. Murillo, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 379, 381-382 (1992), both involving distribution indictments, with Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452, 456-457 (1969), dealing with an indictment charging sale.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The evidence that the defendant was a friend of the sellers, that she directed the buyer (an undercover police officer) to the sellers, accompanied him to their apartment, and remained while the sale of cocaine was being made, coupled with the evidence that she expected to be paid for her role in the transaction (although she received nothing and had no agreement to receive anything from the buyer) justify an inference that the defendant was “associated with the illegal sale and had a ‘significant participation in it,’ ” Commonwealth v. Mendoza, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 919 (1979), quoting from Commonwealth v. Morrow, 363 Mass. 601, 609 (1973). Thus, the motion for a required finding of not guilty was properly denied.

We need not consider, therefore, the Commonwealth’s contention that the defendant, even if shown to be only a procurring agent for the buyer, could nevertheless be found guilty under an indictment, such as this one, charging distribution, as contrasted with an indictment charging sale. Compare Commonwealth v. Noons, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 814, 815 (1974), and Commonwealth v. Murillo, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 379, 381-382 (1992), both involving distribution indictments, with Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452, 456-457 (1969), dealing with an indictment charging sale.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 N.E.2d 634, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 987, 1995 Mass. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-white-massappct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack