At trial, defendant, in testifying, disputed that on either occasion specified in the indictment he had made any money or profited in any way in procuring narcotics for the undercover police officer who testified. Defendant asserted that he procured the narcotics as a favor for the "informant" who had accompanied the police officer. Inasmuch as a most favorable view of the evidence would support a conclusion by the jury that defendant acted solely for the undercover police...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
