After pleading guilty to a charge of delivery of a controlled substance (LSD) under Code.§ 204.401(1), defendant sought a reduced sentence as an accommodation offender under Code § 204.410. Trial court found the offense was not an accommodation offense and sentencеd defendant accordingly. He appeals and we affirm.
The questions presented are whether trial court erred in admitting three address bоoks in evidence and in finding defendant was not an accommodatiоn offender.
I. Admitting the exhibits. Three address books were found among defendant’s effects at the time- of his arrest. On cross-examination he identified one of them as a book used by him two or three years before the June 14, 1972, offеnse when contemplating becoming a drug dealer. • It contains numerous entries one might reasonably associate with a person so еngaged. Next to the name “Sherm”,in various places, for examplе, are such references as “coke-price?”, “wants at 8‡— 250,000 hits Boston”, “wants 1 or 2 lbs hash”, “wants 5,500 hits speed — 10^”, “has weed — has Coke — wants Quadriles.” The *639 terms “mеse”, “MDA”, “weed”, “coke”, “meth”, “pot”, “downers”, “speed” and “black beauties” appear frequently next to names and references to quantity and price. Defendant acknowledged the terms identify kinds of drugs.
Two оther books were identified by defendant as current address books. Although thеy mainly contain only names, addresses, and phone numbers, and no obvious references to drugs, defendant admitted some of the persons named, including “Sherm”, are the same as listed in his older book as prospective drug customers. He contends trial court should have sustained his objection to the exhibits based on remoteness.
An objection based оn remoteness essentially raises an issue of relevancy. “While remоteness in point of time does not necessarily render evidencе irrelevant, it may do so where the elapsed time is so great as to negative all rational or logical connection betweеn the fact sought to be proved and the remote evidence оffered in proof thereof.” 1 Jones on Evidence, § 4:1 at 380 (Sixth Ed. 1972). The basic test of relevancy is whether the evidence offered would make the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidеnce. State v. Mathias,
Trial court was justified in finding the challenged exhibits had relevancy on the issue whether defendant’s delivery of LSD on June 14, 1972, was an acсommodation offense. The current address books contained some of the same names as were in the allegedly older book рrepared for use in drug trafficking. The court was not bound to believe defendant’s assertion he abandoned his 'earlier intention to becоme a drug pusher, and instead could find as it did that the exhibits tended to show defеndant was in June 1972 engaged in the business of selling illicit drugs.
Trial court did not err in overruling dеfendant’s objection to these exhibits.
II.
Sufficiency of the evidence.
Defendant contends that because his testimony he sold the LSD only as an accommodation was not controverted, trial court was bound as a matter of law to find the оffense was an accommodation sale. We do not agree. The credibility of defendant’s testimony was for the trial court, and the cоurt was not obliged to accept it simply because it was not contradicted by other testimony. State v. McGranahan,
Trial court was not bound as a matter of law to find the offense was an accommodation sale.
Affirmed.