What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of conspiracy to sell drugs?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Scalzi, 126 Cal.App.3d 901, 179 Cal.Rptr. 61 (Cal. App. 1981):
Upon retrial, assuming the essential evidence of record remains substantially as is, we opine that the trial court would err if it failed to instruct in accordance with our decision in People v. Yarber, supra, 90 Cal.App.3d 865, 916, 153 Cal.Rptr. 875.
Finally, although we find it highly unlikely, if by some strange quirk or coincidence, the second jury inquires of the court "Does the act of borrowing money obtained from the sale of an illegal substance, (knowing beforehand that the money being loaned is obtained from the illegal sales of drugs) constitute conspiracy-sale of drugs" as did the jury herein, we opine that the court should answer "no" in addition to reinstructing on the law of conspiracy. (People v. Hardeman (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 1, 51-52, 53 Cal.Rptr. 168, cert. den. 387 U.S. 912, 87 S.Ct. 1700, 18 L.Ed.2d 634.)
Judgment is reversed.
FEINBERG and STERN, * JJ., concur.
1 The jury's verdict in count one after finding appellant guilty of conspiracy states:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
