St. Clair v. State

While I agree this is not a double jeopardy case, I respectfully dissent on the issue of proof and, further, discuss the double jeopardy concerns because the majority unnecessarily recedes from Gordon.4

First of all, I would affirm both of St. Clair’s convictions because he was a principal to both of the seller’s crimes of delivery and possession. In his role of broker, St. Clair “stood in the shoes” of the seller and is, therefore, guilty of all crimes for which the seller is, or could be, convicted. The seller delivered one rock of cocaine to Evans, and, additionally, retained in his hand…