The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's agency defense was clearly refuted by the evidence, including defendant's testimony that he was engaged in the business of arranging drug transactions in return for a share of the drugs. Since, even under defendant's version of the facts, he received more than a tip or incidental benefit, and acted primarily, if not exclusively, for his own profit, he was not entitled to the protection afforded by the agency...
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.
