Court Opinion

ID: 9737466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:26:04.638557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.126452
License: Public Domain

Hastings, C. J.,
dissenting.
In my opinion, the description of the sting operation made more probable the State’s assertion that a pattern of drug activity surrounded this residence. The drug activity encompassing 2517 Burdette Street provided the defendant the opportunity to participate in this drug activity. Whether or not he lived there or went there on a regular basis, the evidence disclosed that he operated in a more than happenstance fashion. The testimony tended to show that McGee, the third-party purchaser, had purchased drugs at this location on other occasions or knew that drugs could be purchased there. Also, this testimony was relevant because it made it more probable that the drugs found at the residence and held by the defendant were held for delivery or distribution.
I would have affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.