Court Opinion

ID: 9738065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:41:44.826468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.522808
License: Public Domain

J. E. Townsend, J.
(concurring). I concur in the *337result. The charge against defendant in this case was conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to deliver, not delivery of marijuana or possession with intent to deliver marijuana. The offense of conspiracy is committed before the criminal purpose is accomplished. People v Carter, 415 Mich 558, 568-569; 330 NW2d 314 (1982).
The actual transfer of possession of the marijuana to defendant’s alleged coconspirators occurred after the alleged conspiracy was complete. Unlike the facts in People v Stanley, 68 Mich App 559; 243 NW2d 684 (1976), and Hampton v United States, 425 US 484; 96 S Ct 1646; 48 L Ed 2d 113 (1976), relied upon by defendant, the case against defendant does not rest on a delivery or possession of marijuana made possible by police-furnished contraband.
The transfer of marijuana by police to defendant’s coconspirators was neither an element of the crime charged nor a condition precedent which made the conspiracy possible.
Furthermore, defendant’s involvement with co-conspirators Cook and Swistak did not result from any police urging or pressure on defendant. Indeed, initial arrangements among the coconspirators occurred before Bowman met defendant for the first time.