The defense in the case was that defendant was acting not on behalf of the seller of the narcotics but as agent for the buyer, an undercover police officer. The evidence presented a question of fact as to this issue. Although the court gave an otherwise unexceptionable charge on the burden of proof and reasonable doubt, the court, apparently inadvertently, stated to the jury that "if * * * you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant * * * acted solely as the agent...
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.
