Court Opinion

ID: 9687877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:52:24.07896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:14.939013
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, J.
(concurring). I would concur *531with Judge Van Valkenburg’s opinion; there was testimony that the Lucketts were aware of the heroin activity in the room that the defendant was arrested in, that there was open heroin therein, that the sale of the heroin was there, and that there was evidence that heroin had been used in that room. There was also testimony that tinfoil decks were being made up there. The undercover agent testified that he had, at one time, dealt with the Lucketts, although his testimony in this area is a little vague.
I would ask that the trial judge, on remand, inquire into that area so as to determine whether the Lucketts were in fact accomplices; and, if he so finds, then the law is quite clear that there is no duty on the part of the prosecutor to endorse as res gestae witnesses those persons who could have been charged as accomplices and, therefore, the conviction should be affirmed.