Lucas v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lucas v. State

302 S.E.2d 121, 165 Ga. App. 468, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1911

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1983

Docket65234

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 S.E.2d 121 (Lucas v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lucas v. State, 302 S.E.2d 121, 165 Ga. App. 468, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1911 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Chief Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of selling marijuana to an undercover investigator. In his sole enumeration of error, appellant takes issue with the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of the sale of marijuana if he were acting solely as a procuring agent for another.

Appellant’s contention is controlled adversely to him by this court’s decisions in Bailey v. State, 163 Ga. App. 464 (5) (294 SE2d 702); Royal v. State, 158 Ga. App. 405 (3) (280 SE2d 427); and Loder v. State, 140 Ga. App. 166 (2) (230 SE2d 124), vacated in 238 Ga. 200 (232 SE2d 71), reaffirmed in 141 Ga. App. 665 (234 SE2d 132). “This ‘procuring agent’ theory has been raised before and has been rejected. [Cits.] The apparent rationale behind the rejection of this theory is that a ‘party to the crime’ under Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1271 (Code Ann. § 26-801 (a)) [OCGA § 16-2-20 (a)] is a person who is ‘concerned’ with the crime, and that he may be tried and convicted and punished as if he had directly committed the crime, and that this is so whether or not he is not charged under Code Ann. § 26-801 (a).” Royal v. State, supra, p. 406.

Inasmuch as the defense offered by appellant is not recognized in this state, it was not error to fail to instruct the jury as appellant orally requested.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Chief Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of selling marijuana to an undercover investigator. In his sole enumeration of error, appellant takes issue with the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of the sale of marijuana if he were acting solely as a procuring agent for another.

Appellant’s contention is controlled adversely to him by this court’s decisions in Bailey v. State, 163 Ga. App. 464 (5) (294 SE2d 702); Royal v. State, 158 Ga. App. 405 (3) (280 SE2d 427); and Loder v. State, 140 Ga. App. 166 (2) (230 SE2d 124), vacated in 238 Ga. 200 (232 SE2d 71), reaffirmed in 141 Ga. App. 665 (234 SE2d 132). “This ‘procuring agent’ theory has been raised before and has been rejected. [Cits.] The apparent rationale behind the rejection of this theory is that a ‘party to the crime’ under Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1271 (Code Ann. § 26-801 (a)) [OCGA § 16-2-20 (a)] is a person who is ‘concerned’ with the crime, and that he may be tried and convicted and punished as if he had directly committed the crime, and that this is so whether or not he is not charged under Code Ann. § 26-801 (a).” Royal v. State, supra, p. 406.

Inasmuch as the defense offered by appellant is not recognized in this state, it was not error to fail to instruct the jury as appellant orally requested.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.E.2d 121, 165 Ga. App. 468, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-state-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack