Opinion ID: 2606547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: distribution for value

Text: Defendant next contends that the distribution was not for value and his conviction must be set aside. In State v. Ontiveros, 674 P.2d 103 (Utah 1983), the evidence clearly established that Ontiveros, a known drug dealer, was acting merely as the officer's agent in making the purchase from a third party. After several importunings by an undercover officer, Ontiveros told him he would have to make a phone call to see if someone else had any marijuana. Id. at 104. While in the officer's presence, Ontiveros called and found some, and while on the phone, told the officer that he could get some marijuana at $40 for a half ounce, to which the officer agreed. Both rode in the officer's car with Ontiveros directing the officer to the source. Upon arrival, the officer gave Ontiveros the $40 and Ontiveros left the car, entered a residence, and returned five to ten minutes later with the marijuana. Of particular significance in demonstrating that Ontiveros was acting merely as the officer's agent, Ontiveros asked the officer to sell him some of the marijuana. All of these factors demonstrated that Ontiveros did not distribute for value and we reversed his conviction. Ontiveros is distinguishable in several particulars. Most importantly, Udell himself agreed to sell the cocaine to the officer. He did not merely find and direct the officer to another seller. Defendant left his own apartment and went to a friend's apartment to make the phone call out of the officer's presence. He did not simply make an accommodation call to see if someone else had any. He did not direct the officer to the source and merely carry the money for the officer. Defendant took the officer's $120 and told him to wait at defendant's apartment because it would take about an hour. In actuality, defendant bought gasoline for his car, drove to Provo and back, and spent the remainder of the evening obtaining the cocaine. Defendant's contention that the distribution was not for value because he did not make a profit on the transaction lacks merit. Statutes dealing with the sale and distribution of drugs give these terms broader meaning than their regular commercial sense. State v. Woods, 214 Kan. 739, 522 P.2d 967 (1974); State v. McCullar, 110 Ariz. 427, 520 P.2d 299 (1974); see Wright v. State, 651 P.2d 846 (Alaska App. 1982); see generally 28 C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics Supp. § 164, 93 A.L.R.2d 1008. We have held that it is irrelevant whether or not a defendant profits from the transaction when arranging a sale, State v. Harrison, 601 P.2d 922, 924 (Utah 1979), or transporting a controlled substance. State v. One 1983 Pontiac, 717 P.2d 1338 (Utah 1986). An exchange of cash for a controlled substance clearly falls within the broad definition of distribution for value. Whether the defendant realizes a profit or not is irrelevant. Defendant's conviction is affirmed. HALL, C.J., and STEWART, DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.