Adam v. State
127 Nev. 601
| Nev. | 2011Background
- Adam was convicted of trafficking in meth; the district court refused his request for a procuring agent defense instruction.
- An undercover detective connected Adam to meth suppliers; Adam helped arrange the transaction and weighed the meth in his car.
- The meth was exchanged for money; Detective Wilson observed Adam receive $500 and then hand the meth to Wilson.
- Adam was charged under NRS 453.3385 for actual or constructive possession of 12.64 grams of methamphetamine, i.e., trafficking based on possession theory.
- Nevada case law had previously allowed a procuring agent defense in trafficking where possession was incidental to a contemplated sale, but not for possession-only theories.
- The Supreme Court of Nevada ultimately held the procuring agent defense is inapplicable to trafficking charges, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of procuring agent defense to trafficking | Adam contends the defense should apply when sale was contemplated. | State argues Hillis and related precedents should be overruled and defense barred for trafficking. | Procuring agent defense is inapplicable to trafficking charges. |
| Effect of prior precedence overruling | Prior cases support extending the defense to trafficking based on possession. | State maintains prior decisions conflict with trafficking statutes and public policy. | We overrule prior cases to the extent they permit the defense for trafficking based on possession. |
| Impact of trafficking statute structure on liability | Agency defense aligns liability with purchaser where appropriate. | Trafficking statutes treat participants as equally liable regardless of role. | Statutes treat all participants in trafficking as equally culpable; defense would undermine statutory design. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roy v. State, 87 Nev. 517, 489 P.2d 1158 (1971) (procuring agent concept explained for buyer-procurer liability)
- Buckley v. State, 95 Nev. 602, 600 P.2d 227 (1979) (procuring agent defense not applicable to possession)
- Hillis v. State, 103 Nev. 531, 746 P.2d 1092 (1987) (procuring agent defense applicable to trafficking based on possession where incidental to sale)
- Love v. State, 111 Nev. 545, 893 P.2d 376 (1995) (discusses burden of proof and limits of defense in trafficking by possession)
- Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (1954) (original proffer of procuring agent defense)