Opinion ID: 1165055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Specific Intent to Establish the Hard Sale

Text: In Mundt v. People, 195 Colo. 145, 576 P.2d 165 (1978), we held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish a hard sale. In this case, the following circumstantial evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that the defendant had the specific intent to engage in the conduct proscribed by the statute: (1) The amount of heroin seized was 30.3 grams, 6 grams of which were in 6 separate balloons containing approximately one gram each, the remaining 24.3 grams were in a single package. (2) The 24.3 grams of heroin tested at 5% purity, the heroin in the balloons tested at 4% purity. Expert testimony was that the purity of street level heroin runs between 1.5% and 2% purity. (3) The bulk from the 24.3 grams of heroin could be indicative of either a recent purchase from a supplier or the intent on the part of the owner to sell the heroin to a street dealer. The inference of intent to induce another to use or possess the heroin is especially strong in light of the defendant's testimony that he was not a heroin user. (4) During the time that the defendant's truck was parked outside the bar and under police surveillance, police saw the defendant make three trips to his truck and remain a sufficient length of time to pick up narcotics and then return to the bar. (5) An officer with past narcotics experience stated that it was a common practice for a dealer selling narcotics to leave his car in a visible location so that potential purchasers will know that the dealer has drugs to sell. Additionally, the evidence met the test set forth in People v. Bennett, supra , for withstanding a motion for judgment of acquittal. We have answered the defendant's attack on the constitutionality of the hard sale statute in People v. Bowers, 187 Colo. 233, 530 P.2d 1282 (1975). Accordingly, we affirm. ROVIRA, J., does not participate.