Court Opinion

ID: 9680923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:41:09.508834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.392073
License: Public Domain

VOLLERS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that an examination of the indictment in this cause reveals that it only alleges a misdemeanor. I disagree.
As pointed out in the majority opinion the Controlled Substances Act prohibits the knowing or intentional delivery of marihuana (Section 4.05(d)). The term “delivery” includes an offer to sell a controlled substance (Section 1.02(8)). However, the majority wrongfully concludes that under Section 4.05(f) of the Controlled Substances Act the knowing or intentional delivery (offer to sell) of marihuana is a class B misdemeanor if the actor delivers (offers to sell) one-fourth ounce or less without receiving remuneration. Such a conclusion is self-contradictory. It is clear that the legislature intended to reduce the punishment for the act of delivery of marihuana where one *958person made a gift of one-quarter ounce or less of marihuana to another. This exception simply does not fit the transaction described in the instant indictment where there was an offer to sell marihuana.
An examination of the Controlled Substances Act reveals that the word “sale” is not defined as it was under the former penal code. Under Article 725b, Section 1(10) V.A.P.C., 1925, sale was defined as including “barter, exchange, or gift, or offer therefor . . .” Therefore, under the former penal code the word “sale” had a technical meaning that includes any exchange or gift. However, the Controlled Substances Act does not define sale and it therefore is used with its normal meaning. It is apparent that the legislature, in enacting the Controlled Substances Act used the comprehensive term of “delivery” to cover all transfers and attempted transfers but used the phrase “offer to sell” with its normal meaning. The normal meaning of the word “sale” is “the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price.” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. It has also been defined as “a transfer of the property in a chattel for a consideration . a transfer of personal property at a fixed money price payable in cash or in goods.” Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd Edition, 1969).
From this it should-be apparent that an essential element of sale is the money price which is either fixed by agreement or capable of being ascertained therefrom. Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Edition, 1968).
From this examination it is readily apparent that the term “delivery” is far more comprehensive than the term sale, and when used with its normal meaning the term sale, or offer to sell, means a transfer for remuneration or offer to transfer for remuneration (and excludes a gift). Since it is clear that the legislature only intended to reduce the penalty for delivery of one-quarter ounce or less of marihuana where it was a gift, it is also clear that they did not intend to make an offer to sell one-quarter ounce or less of marihuana a misdemeanor where the offer to sell necessarily included an agreement for remuneration.
It appears that the objection which the majority has to this indictment would be cured if the indictment alleged that the defendant did knowingly and intentionally offer to sell a controlled substance, namely marihuana, for remuneration to R. L. Ferguson. An allegation that an offer to sell is for remuneration is redundant and unnecessary. It would appear that all sales of marihuana are third degree felonies regardless of the amount of the controlled substance involved. For the purpose of the Controlled Substances Act there is no qualitative difference between an “offer to sell” marihuana and any completed sale of marihuana. In other words, an offer to sell is a delivery; however, the phrase “offer to sell” like “sale” reveals more information about the kind of delivery made than the mere allegation of “delivery.”
If the allegation in this indictment was merely that the appellant did “deliver” marihuana, then I would readily agree that the indictment is insufficient to charge a felony because the allegation of delivery would include a transfer of one-quarter ounce or less without remuneration. The same is true if there is an offer to deliver. However, the indictment would be sufficient if it alleged the sale of marihuana without alleging the amount because the term “sale” could not include a gratuitous delivery of one-quarter ounce of marihuana or less. Therefore the allegation in this indictment that there was an “offer to sell” marihuana includes an allegation that there was an offer to transfer for remuneration a controlled substance, and this necessarily negates the exception created by the legislature that it is only a misdemeanor to gratuitously transfer one-quarter ounce or less.
The majority equates an “offer to sell” with a “delivery” for all purposes, and holds that the former phrase therefore fails to allege “whether the offer to sell was for remuneration.” The plain meaning of the word “sell” negates any conclusion that an *959“offer to sell” is not for remuneration. Any other construction of Section 4.05 of the Controlled Substances Act would require either (1) a redundant allegation in an indictment that a sale of marihuana is “for remuneration” in all cases where the amount is not alleged, or (2) a finding that the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute was to make “offers to sell” one-quarter ounce of marihuana or less misdemeanors. I cannot accept either of such conclusions. The indictment before us is sufficient to allege a felony offense and I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I dissent.
DOUGLAS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ., join in this dissent.