State v. Day
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the CourtMahady, J.
Defendant was convicted, by jury, of knowingly and unlawfully selling for a consideration a regulated drug, cocaine, in violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4224(g). At trial, he relied upon the “procuring agent” defense. His appeal raises the following issue: Did the trial court adequately instruct the jury as to this theory of defense? We conclude that the charge was adequate and affirm.
Vermont recognizes the “procuring agent” defense. Where the sale of a regulated drug for a consideration forms the basis of the crime charged, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. GoyetSupreme Court of Vermont · 1957
- State v. CioccaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1965
- State v. BrissonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1955
- State v. PoirierSupreme Court of Vermont · 1983
- State v. DusablonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. PelicanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
- State v. KinneySupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
- State v. CantrellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1989
- State v. DaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.