State v. StoneState v. Stone
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Lampron
Indiсtment charging that the defendant on the tenth day of April 1972 “did sell” to one Daniel Perria two tabs of LSD, a controlled drug, for a total of four dollars. Trial by jury which found the defendant guilty of the offense charged. The Trial Court (Keller, C.J.) sentenced Stone to be confined at the State prison for not more than five yeаrs nor less than three. Defendant’s exceptions to the charge as given and to the court’s failure to include certain requested instructions were reserved and transferred. The issue to be decidеd is whether the acts of the defendant as testified to by Perria constituted an illegal sale under RSA ch. 318-B (Suрp. 1973).
Perria, an undercover agent for the police, testified that on April 10, 1972, he and a femalе companion met the defendant and a friend in a laundromat in Lakeport. He asked where he could obtain LSD and the defendant told him that it could be obtained at the home of David Piper in Weirs. All fоur boarded Perria’s car and under defendant’s directions drove to Piper’s house. Defendant told Perria that the price of LSD was two dollars a tablet and was given four dollars by Perria. Defendant was the only one who left the car. He returned in a few minutes and handed Perria two tablets of LSD. Defendant told Perria he could get him more but Piper would not sell drugs to Perria because he only dealt with people he knew. Perria testified that defendant told him that Piper had asked him “to go in partners with him” and that defendant had said “I don’t have to worry, anytime I ever get into trouble he’ll bail me out.”
Defendant maintains that because there was no еvidence that he made any profit from the transaction and that on the facts he was an agеnt of the buyer he could not be found guilty on this indictment charging that he “did sell” a controlled drug to Perria in violаtion of RSA ch. 318-B (Supp. 1973). In support of his position he relies on cases in which the courts have adopted the narrower definition of “sale” which prevails under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Commonwealth v. Harvard,
356 Mass. 452, 253 N.E.2d 346 (1969);
People v. Fortes,
24 App. Div. 2d 428, 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965);
Durham v. State,
162 Tex. Crim. 25, 280 S.W.2d 737 (1955);
see
RSA ch. 318-B (Supp. 1973) was enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 421 to supersede the then existing drug act. RSA ch. 318-A. “This bill [now RSA ch. 381-B] is the master drug bill and encompasses all new definitions. It also encompasses new penalties. It is a totally new enforcement bill and is essential to cope with the drug problem existing today.” N.H.S. Jour. 1210 (1969). It is intended to include the whole problem of drugs: (1) their creation (“manufacture”, “compound”), (2) their possession (“possess”, “have under his control”), and (3) their transfer or distribution (“sell”, “purchase”, “prescribe”, “administer”, “dispense”).
The words “sell” or “sale” must be interpreted within thе context of the whole statute of which they are a part. Costoras v. Noel, 100 N.H. 81, 83, 119 A.2d 705, 706 (1956). They need not have the same meaning in this criminal statute that they have in the statute governing commercial transactions. State v. Allen, 292 A.2d 167, 170 (Me. 1972); see Champa v. Consolidated Fin. Corp., 231 Ind. 580, 110 N.E.2d 289 (1953). These words must bе interpreted so as to carry out, not defeat, the manifest objective sought by the statute, the regulation of controlled drugs in all its aspects. State v. Folland, 100 N.H. 188, 190, 122 A.2d 268, 270 (1956); Granville v. State, 287 A.2d 652, 654 (Del. 1972). We hold that proof that the defendant made no profit or received no other consideration from this transaction, or proof that he wаs simply a procuring agent for Perria would not prevent the defendant’s action from constituting a sаle under RSA ch. 318-B (Supp. 1973). The jury could properly find that defendant was guilty of the charge that he “did sell” two tаbs of LSD to David Perria in violation of section 318-B: 2 of ,the above statute by his actions in bringing about the transfеr of the LSD to Perria. State v. Allen supra; Granville v. State supra; State v. Koppenhafer, 502 P.2d 610 (Ore. App. 1972); Higby v. State, 485 P.2d 380 (Wyo. 1971); Annot., 93 A.L.R.2d 1008 (1964).
We find no merit in the claim that the use of the word “sale” by the court in its instructions to the jury instead of the words “did sell” used in the indictment prejudiced the defendant.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.