The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Officer Grimball, acting undercover as an addict, procured a 'joint' of heroin, and a backup team promptly pounced on those thought to have been involved in the sale. Count One charged D and a codefendant, Gregory Valentine, with conspiring to distribute and Count Two to possess with intent to distribute heroin. The Officer approached Valentine and asked him for a joint of 'D.' Valentine asked Grimball whom he knew around the street. Grimball asked if Valentine knew Scott. He did not. D 'came up' and Valentine said, 'He wants a joint, but I don't know him.' D said, 'He looks okay to me.' Valentine then said, 'Okay. But I am going to leave it somewhere and you can pick it up.' D interjected, 'You don't have to do that. Just go and get it for him. He looks all right to me.' After looking again at Grimball, D said, 'He looks all right to me' and 'I will wait right here.' Grimball followed Valentine to a hotel and was told to, 'Sit on the black car and give me a few minutes to go up and get it.' Valentine requested and received $40. Valentine entered the hotel and shortly returned and asked that Grimball pass some money his way to him taking care of Grimball. The two went back to their original location where Valentine placed a cigarette box on the hood of a blue car. Grimball picked up the cigarette box and found a glassine envelope containing white powder, stipulated to be heroin. Grimball placed $5 in the cigarette box, which he replaced on the hood. Valentine picked up the box and removed the $5. D and Valentine were arrested. Valentine had two glassine envelopes of heroin and the $5. D was in possession of $31 of his own money; no drugs or contraband were found on him. The $40 of marked buy money was not recovered, and no arrests were made at the hotel. Grimball qualified as an expert. He explained how drug dealers use a number of people called steerer’s upfront to determine if the person buying is an addict or not. Grimball testified that D was a steerer, 'Because I believe that if it wasn't for his approval, the buy would not have gone down.' The jury convicted D on Count One, the conspiracy count but was unable to reach a verdict on Count Two. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.