State v. Remington

The defendant was convicted of criminal activity in drugs contrary to ORS 167.207, ① i.e., furnishing heroin to an undercover agent. His codefendant in- the joint jury trial was one Kip Hughes, who was acquitted of the samé charge.

On appeal defendant makes two contentions: (1) that it wás, error to permit the undercover agents to testify as to how they happened to make contact with the defendant and Hughes; and (2) that the two verdicts were inconsistent, and therefore the verdict of guilty as, to-, defendant Remington must be set. asicie.

The,undercover agents, testified, that they had been .…