Sherrad v. State

It was appellant’s contention that the court should instruct the jury that unless they believed “that the sale was actually consumated by the defendant by the delivery of the * * * marihuana to the purchaser” to acquit.

The majority opinion does not sustain such contention, though the effect of the opinion is to do so.

There is no question but that the state’s evidence shows a design, scheme and plan to sell narcotics, appellant’s part being to make the agreement, collect a down payment and instruct the buyer to return for the narcotics, another to conclude the *122transaction by collecting the…