State v. Metcalf

I respectfully dissent on the basis (1) that submission of an accommodation offense under the statute requires proof of the affirmative element of “accommodation” and (2) there is a total lack of such evidence.

The issue here presented arises as a result of a recent change in our controlled substance statute, section 204.410, relating to proof of the accommodation offense.

Prior to July 1, 1976, section 204.410 established a two-step procedure wherein a defendant convicted of delivery of a controlled substance or of possession with intent to deliver could request an accommodation hearing if he…