Opinion ID: 2344039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Nevada's caselaw regarding the procuring agent defense

Text: In 1971, this court recognized the procuring agent defense, which was first announced in United States v. Sawyer, 210 F.2d 169 (3d Cir.1954). See Roy v. State, 87 Nev. 517, 489 P.2d 1158 (1971). Under this defense, if the jury finds that the defendant was only acting on behalf of a buyer when procuring drugs, then the defendant could not be convicted of selling drugs. Sawyer, 210 F.2d at 170; Roy, 87 Nev. at 519, 489 P.2d at 1159. In Buckley v. State, 95 Nev. 602, 604, 600 P.2d 227, 228 (1979), we held that the procuring agent defense is not applicable when the defendant is charged with the crime of possession. [4] Several years after the trafficking statutes were adopted, this court considered the procuring agent defense's applicability to charges of trafficking based on possession and held that [e]ven when possession for sale is not specifically alleged, the [procuring agent] instruction may be required where possession was clearly incidental to a contemplated sales transaction initiated by an informant. Hillis v. State, 103 Nev. 531, 535, 746 P.2d 1092, 1095 (1987). We have since relied on Hillis for the general proposition that the procuring agent defense is applicable to a trafficking case where the State charges trafficking on a theory of possession, but the facts reveal a sale was contemplated. Love v. State, 111 Nev. 545, 548-49, 893 P.2d 376, 378 (1995).