Opinion ID: 2380213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence on accomplice liability

Text: The defendant argues that his actions were in aid of the buyers in this case  the two police officers  and that consequently, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he was an accomplice to the sellers. [3] From the record in this case the jury could have found the following facts: (1) the defendant knew Percy Sargent and in fact telephoned him to make the arrangements for the sale, (2) the defendant placed several phone calls in the Bangor area to facilitate the arrangements for the sale, (3) the defendant introduced Sargent to the two undercover officers, and (4) the defendant assisted in the actual sale by smelling the first pound of marijuana and counting the other nine pounds. Although the record reflects the defendant's claim that he did not know the person who actually supplied the drugs for the sale, it is equally clear that the defendant's role could have been viewed by the jury as an accomplice to the sellers, namely Percy Sargent. There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant on an accomplice theory of liability.