State ex rel. G.E., 94 So. 3d 863

Juvenile charged by petition (June 1, 2011) with distribution of marijuana and cocaine and possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine.
Motion to quash on double jeopardy grounds filed August 31, 2011; denied September 1, 2011.
Trial on the merits conducted September 1, 2011; juvenile adjudicated delinquent on all four counts.
Detective Burke conducted a bust/buy operation; buyer delivered two rocks of crack cocaine and marijuana to Burke with marked currency.
Take-down team recovered 13 bags of marijuana and 12 pieces of crack cocaine at the residence; juvenile found in close proximity to the drugs.
Court adjudicated juvenile a principal to all four offenses under La. R.S. 14:24 and affirmed the judgment on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy denial (dup) whether charging two offenses from the same transaction violated protection	G.E. argues same acts form one offense under Blockburger/Same elements	State contends separate acts (sale vs. possession with intent) from different times/locations	No double jeopardy; offenses arise from distinct acts; affirmed
Sufficiency of the evidence to adjudicate delinquency	State showed each element beyond reasonable doubt as to all four counts	Defense asserts insufficient evidence to prove principals/intent	Evidence sufficient; rational trier of fact could find all elements beyond reasonable doubt; adjudication affirmed

Blockberger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for multiple offenses: each offense requires proof of an additional fact)
State ex rel. J.L., 23 So.3d 993 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2009) (recognizes flexibility of Hearold factors in proving intent to distribute)
State v. Armstead, 832 So.2d 389 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2002) (two separate acts can support multiple offenses without double jeopardy)
State v. Cushenberry, 650 So.2d 783 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (useful factors for proving intent to distribute by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Kanost, 759 So.2d 184 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2000) (elements of distribution proven through transfer/delivery; knowledge may be inferred)
State v. Sylvia, 845 So.2d 358 (La. 2003) (knowledge and intent may be inferred from circumstances)
State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (La. 1980) (same evidence test guidance for double jeopardy)
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 654 So.2d 1311 (La. 1995) (same evidence test considers evidence needed for each offense)
Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (establishes when two offenses constitute double jeopardy)
State v. Saylor, 802 So.2d 937 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2001) (principal theory in narcotics distribution cases)