UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
RALPH REDWOOD, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The procuring agent or purchasing agent theory is not a valid defense to the criminal charge of unlawful distribution of heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).
Appellant was charged with unlawful distribution of heroin. He argued he was acting solely as a purchasing agent for the buyer, which was a valid defe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Purchasing Agent Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
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).1
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” 2 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.3 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).
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
. 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).
. 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Wokkopich, 479 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Earnest Johnson, 481 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Hernandez, 480 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1973)