Case ID: or-app_26/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SCHWAB, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued June 16,
    affirmed August 9,
    reconsideration denied September 15, petition for review denied October 12, 1976
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY STEVEN FACCIO, Appellant.
    
    (No. 75 3337, CA 5749)
    552 P2d 868
    
      Robert C. Cannon, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.
    W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and Donald Paillette, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
    Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Foley, Judges.
    SCHWAB, C. J.
   SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant’s two assignments of error present a single question: Did the evidence present a prima facie case against him on the charge of conspiracy to commit criminal activity in drugs? We so hold.

There was testimony that Judith Roth — alleged in the indictment to be defendant’s co-conspirator — engaged in extended negotiations with an informant to sell a large amount of amphetamine tablets. During these negotiations, Ms. Roth stated that defendant was her source of illegal drugs.

Police officers observed a transaction between Ms. Roth and a customer on January 17,1975 — alleged in the indictment to be the date of the crime. After leaving the customer at a restaurant, Ms. Roth was followed by officers to defendant’s house. She stayed about five minutes. Ms. Roth was then followed by the officers back to the restaurant, where a sale of amphetamine tablets was consummated. Again, the officers followed Ms. Roth to defendant’s house where she stayed about 30 minutes.

It was a question for the factfinder whether Ms. Roth’s visits were social in nature, as defendant testified, or commercial in nature — the first to quickly pick up drugs and the second to leisurely split the sale proceeds. See, State v. Krummacher, 269 Or 125, 523 P2d 1009 (1974); State v. Brewer, 267 Or 346, 517 P2d 264 (1973).

Affirmed.