Case Title: State v. Mercado

Citation: 166 Vt. 632, 699 A.2d 50

Docket Number: 95-392

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Mercado  (95-392); 166 Vt. 632; 699 A.2d 50

[Filed 13-Jun-1997]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-392

                         JUNE TERM, 1997

State of Vermont                }      APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }      District Court of Vermont
                                }      Unit 2, Chittenden Circuit
Ramon A. Mercado                }
                                }      DOCKET NO. 3308-7-94 CnCr

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant appeals his conviction for delivery of heroin, 18 V.S.A. §
  4233(b)(1), arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the
  jury on the lesser offense of possession, id. § 4233(a)(1).  We affirm.

       At trial, the State elicited testimony from a police informant, who
  testified that on March 23, 1994 he went to defendant's apartment and told
  defendant that he wanted to buy two bags of heroin.  Defendant gave him two
  bags, and the informant gave defendant seventy dollars. Two police
  detectives also testified.  The first described the investigation and the
  circumstances surrounding the informant's controlled purchase of heroin
  from defendant.  The second detective described a conversation that he had
  with defendant about the incident.  Defendant told the detective that he
  recalled getting off the bus from New York City on March 23, 1994, and that
  at that time defendant had about fifteen to thirty bags of heroin on his
  person.  When questioned about the actual sale of heroin, defendant
  indicated that he might allow a bag or two of heroin to leave his
  apartment, but stated that he did not sell heroin and did not make a profit
  from any heroin that left his apartment.

       Defense counsel requested that the jury be instructed on the
  lesser-included offense of simple possession of heroin.  See 18 V.S.A. §
  4233(a)(1).  The court refused this request, reasoning that the charge was
  not warranted because the same evidence that showed defendant possessed
  heroin also showed that he delivered it.

       We agree.  Although a criminal defendant is generally entitled to have
  the jury instructed on all lesser-included offenses, a charge on a
  lesser-included offense will be given "only if the facts in evidence
  reasonably support such an instruction."  State v. Delisle, 162 Vt. 293,
  301,