Court Opinion

ID: 9674360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:27:28.434982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:27.156502
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
In addition to the distinctions pointed out by my brother Onion, I submit these thoughts.
In the case at bar, Watson testified that he did not initiate the idea of going to Tib-betts’ home and that he did not ask appellant “to do anything for [him] or . take any action for [him]”. On the other hand, appellant testified that it was Watson’s idea that the two of them go to Tib-betts’ home and it was Watson who prevailed upon him to secure the contraband.
In Durham, supra, the testimony of the officers was not inconsistent with the defendant’s defense of accommodation agency. In the case at bar, the officer’s testimony contradicted this defense and, since I find contradictory testimony on the issue, I must conclude that, unlike Durham, supra, appellant’s defense of the accommodation agency was not established as a matter of law.
At most, this testimony raised an issue which was fairly submitted to the jury in the charge.
Further, unlike Durham, supra, the record reflects that appellant asked for a portion of the contraband which had been purchased and smoked the same. There was no evidence in Durham, supra, that defendant had participated in any way in using the contraband which had been purchased.
I concur.