Opinion ID: 1975000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trafficking in Hypodermic Apparatuses

Text: The defendants were also convicted of trafficking in hypodermic apparatuses in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1110. [4] Trafficking is defined in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1101(17) as follows: 17. `Traffick:' A. To make, create, manufacture; B. To grow or cultivate, except with respect to marihuana; C. To sell, barter, trade, exchange or otherwise furnish for consideration; or D. To possess with the intent to do any act mentioned in paragraph C, except that possession of 2 pounds or less of marijuana with such intent shall be deemed furnishing. Offering no evidence that defendants manufactured or sold hypodermic apparatuses, the state attempted to prove that defendants possessed the 98 hypodermic apparatuses in the box in the cellar with the intent to furnish them for consideration, within the scope of subdivision (D) of the definition of trafficking. The only evidence adduced at trial to prove intent to sell, barter, trade, exchange or otherwise furnish hypodermic apparatus for consideration was the quantity of apparatus in the box in the cellar. The 98 hypodermics in the cellar were in a box bearing the description 100 syringes with needles. There was no evidence of any sale. The defendants' friend testified that he had seen the box in the cellar once during the preceding autumn and that White had used a hypodermic to mend wallpaper and tend the plants in the house. There was no explanation for the syringe in the closet. Aside from the sheer number of hypodermics, the evidence actually tended to show that they were not being sold. The possible inference that ninety-eight of the hundred apparatuses had remained untouched in the box for seven or eight months had no tendency to show that defendants intended to furnish them to others, especially when the use of one hypodermic was otherwise accounted for by the testimony of Earl Harvey. On the basis of the evidence in this case, the jury's conclusion that defendants possessed marijuana with intent to furnish it to others does not support any inference that defendants intended to traffic in hypodermic apparatuses. See Redden v. State, 281 A.2d 490 (Del.1971). We hold, therefore, that there was insufficient evidence of trafficking in hypodermic apparatuses to establish defendants' guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions on that count of the indictment must be set aside. The entry is: Appeal of each defendant denied in part and sustained in part. Judgment of conviction of each defendant for furnishing marijuana, affirmed. Judgment of conviction of each defendant for trafficking in hypodermic apparatuses, vacated. Remanded for appropriate proceedings consistent with this opinion. ARCHIBALD and GLASSMAN, JJ., did not sit.