Defendant Entitled to Jury Instruction on Agency Defense Re: Drug Sale and Possession Charges

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the agency defense to drug sale and possession charges. Because the request for the instruction was denied, the defendant was granted a new trial.  The Third Department explained the relevant facts and law:

“Under the agency doctrine, ‘a person who acts solely as the agent of a buyer in procuring drugs for the buyer is not guilty of selling the drug to the buyer, or of possessing it with intent to sell it to the buyer'” … . “The issue of whether a defendant is criminally responsible as a seller, or merely a purchaser doing a favor for a friend, is generally a factual question for the jury to resolve on the circumstances of the particular case” … . “A trial court must grant a request for an agency charge when, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, some evidence, however slight[,] supports the inference that the [defendant] was acting, in effect, as an extension of the buyer” … .

Here, defendant did not initiate the subject transactions. Rather, the CI, who was acquainted with defendant, contacted him to initiate both buys. Before the first buy, defendant said to the CI, with regard to the supplier, “when she meets me and you she’s going to sell us the eight,” which shows that defendant aligned himself with the CI on the buyer’s side of the transaction. At the time of the first buy, defendant and the CI met in defendant’s driveway and talked about defendant’s girlfriend, car and job while they waited for the supplier to arrive with the drugs. When the supplier arrived, the CI asked defendant to get the drugs from her so that he could see them before he paid, and defendant complied. Defendant retrieved nine bags of heroin from the supplier, explaining to the CI that there were “nine here cause [he was] gonna get one too”; again, he was identifying himself on the buyer’s side of the transaction. Defendant’s girlfriend testified that he did not benefit from the sales to the CI. People v Nowlan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05973, 3rd Dept 7-9-15