Court Opinion

ID: 9608464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:13:23.644717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:10.267891
License: Public Domain

Justice BURNETT:
I dissent. The majority narrowly defines “intent to profit” as provided in S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-460 (2002) as a net commercial gain. The majority overlooks the factual differences which may make a distribution an accommodation in one instance but not in another.
First, in my opinion, the majority’s limitation of “intent to profit” to the commercial setting defeats legislative intent. The majority’s citation to McNabb defining “profit” as “the *103excess of returns over expenditures” dismisses other ways drug dealers may “profit”. See Walker v. Commonwealth, Case No. 2974-01-4 (Va. Ct.App. Filed March 4, 2003) available at 2003 WL 722239 (no accommodation where man provided undercover detectives with cocaine in hopes of sharing the drugs); Barlow v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 421, 494 S.E.2d 901 (Va.Ct.App.1998) (denying accommodation charge where heroin dealer sold drugs at “costs”).
The majority limits the definition of “intent to profit” to either a benefit of a personal nature or a profit in a commercial, material sense. Our task as a Court is not to divine the metaphysical distinction between those two choices, but merely to give effect to the intent of the legislature. State v. Ramsey, 311 S.C. 555, 561, 430 S.E.2d 511, 515 (1993).
The intent of the Legislature in enacting § 44-53-460 was to differentiate between suppliers of drugs who, while committing an illegal act, are different from dealers who supply a drug in exchange for a tangible benefit. While I agree with the majority that “intent to profit” necessarily means something more than the distributor gained some intangible benefit from the exchange, this case illustrates the difficulty of narrowly defining the term. The quid pro quo of a transaction may often be deduced, as in this case, from the historical relationship between the parties.
Second, an attempt to strictly define “profit” in this statute subverts the Legislature’s intent to differentiate between the two types of distributors of illegal drugs.
A specific definition of “intent to profit” may provide a superficial benefit, but only at the sacrifice of comprehensiveness explicit in the statutory language. It is difficult to determine, and thus define, whether a person who supplies marijuana to another is acting in mere benevolence or with a design to obtain some tangible benefit from the transaction.
This Court would better discern legislative intent by refusing to strictly define the term “intent to profit.” Instead, we should acknowledge that whether a particular act amounts to an accommodation is a case-specific fact inquiry. As stated above, the quid pro quo or the distributor’s intent to profit from a transaction may be deduced by the relationship among the parties.
*104The victim’s testimony reveals her relationship with Cobb. She regularly visited his house to smoke marijuana provided by him and would allow Cobb to take nude pictures of her. The behavior of Cobb and the victim on the night in question is a continuation of their historical relationship in which the victim received illegal drugs and Cobb satisfied his prurient interests, in exchange.
This evidence establishes Cobb did not deliver the marijuana as a mere accommodation but intended to profit tangibly from the exchange by satisfying his prurient interests. See, e.g., State v. McDaniel, 265 N.W.2d 917, 927 (Iowa 1978) (Uhlenhopp, dissenting).
Accordingly, I would affirm.
TOAL, C.J., concurs.