Case Title: State v. Oien

Citation: 302 N.W.2d 807

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1981-03-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
302 N.W.2d 807 (1981) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Donna Belle OIEN, Defendant and Appellant. No. 13098. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs January 15, 1981. Decided March 4, 1981. *808 Jon R. Erickson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on the brief. Steven P. Schwafel, Rapid City, for defendant and appellant. FOSHEIM, Justice. This is an appeal from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding appellant guilty of distribution of a controlled substance. We affirm. The basic issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the offense of distribution of a controlled substance necessarily includes the lesser offense of unauthorized possession of a controlled substance and that the jury could find the defendant guilty of such lesser offense.[*] Appellant was charged with violating SDCL 22-42-2: Under the law as established in this state, it is incumbent upon the trial court to instruct the jury, if requested, upon a lesser offense included in the offense charged if the evidence warrants a conviction upon the included offense. State v. Crofutt, 76 S.D. 77, 72 N.W.2d 435 (1955). There are two tests that must be satisfied in determining whether the trial court should submit a lesser included offense instruction to the jury. The first is a legal test, the second is factual. We conclude that neither test has been satisfied here. *809 In order to meet the legal test of a necessarily included offense, (1) the elements of the included offense must be fewer in number than the elements of the greater offense, (2) the penalty for the included offense must be less than the greater charged offense, and (3) the two offenses must contain common elements so that the included offense must be such that the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser. State v. Kafka, 264 N.W.2d 702, 705 (S.D.1978) (Zastrow, J., concurring specially). The third component of the legal test has not been met in this case, for while possession is an essential element of possession with intent to distribute, it is clear that the offense of distribution of a controlled substance can be committed in the absence of illegal possession. State v. Aiken, 286 N.C. 202, 209 S.E.2d 763 (1974). It is entirely possible for a person to lawfully possess a controlled substance and yet be convicted of unauthorized distribution of such substance. Thus, evidence of illegal possession does not prove, and is not necessary for proof of, unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. State v. Davis, 68 N.J. 69, 342 A.2d 841 (1975); cf. State v. Griffin, 221 Kan. 83, 558 P.2d 90 (1976). We accordingly conclude that the offense described by SDCL 22-42-5 is not necessarily included, under the legal test, in the greater offense of unauthorized distribution of a controlled substance. Neither has appellant satisfied the factual test, which we have described as follows: State v. Poss, 298 N.W.2d 80, 82-3 (S.D. 1980), quoting State v. Kafka, supra, at 706 (Zastrow, J., concurring specially). Appellant testified that she knew the substance in her physical possession was L.S.D., knew that it was illegal to sell that substance, and stated that she did, in fact, distribute L.S.D. to an individual who turned out to be a drug agent for the State of South Dakota. Appellant urges (assuming the legal test to have been satisfied) that the jury could have found her guilty of possession of a controlled substance, but that she was entrapped into selling. The jury, however, did not find in appellant's favor on the entrapment issue. The flaw in appellant's argument is that the same evidence which established the sale also revealed appellant's possession. She delivered the substance when the sale was made. In order for the factual test to be met, there must be conflicting evidence with regard to the element of the greater offense that is not an element of the lesser. State v. Poss, supra; State v. O'Connor, 265 N.W.2d 709, 716 (S.D.1978) (Zastrow, J., concurring specially). Here, no such conflict existed, and the factual test was thus also unsatisfied. Appellant was either guilty as charged or not guilty of any offense. State v. Wilson, 297 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1980). The judgment of conviction is affirmed. All the Justices concur. [*] SDCL 22-42-5 reads: No person shall knowingly possess a controlled drug or substance unless such substance was obtained directly or pursuant to a valid prescription or order from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by chapter 34-20B. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony.