State v. Cottrell

Facts

Padron, an undercover detective set up a controlled drug buy from Jennifer Curtis based on a tip that she was selling prescription drugs illegally. Pardon requested 8 oxycodone pills and 20 hydrocodone pills. They decided to meet at a QuikTrip later that day. Undercover officers conducted surveillance of the QuikTrip before Padron arrived. One officer observed several people lingering outside the QuikTrip who appeared to be watching for law enforcement, and two of them spoke with Curtis. Padron parked the car in a parking lot next to the QuikTrip. Padron texted but Curtis texted she was, 'Still waitin on mah pops.' A blue pickup truck arrived and parked between Padron's car and the QuikTrip. Curtis walked over to the truck and contacted the driver. As she stood beside the truck, she called Padron and asked him to relocate to the post office. Padron refused to do so. D exited the driver's side of the truck, walked over to Padron's vehicle, and entered the passenger side. Padron's car was wired for video. D exchanged a pill bottle for $350 cash. The camera captured the exchange, which lasted about 30 seconds. A week later, Padron texted Curtis about buying more oxycodone. Eventually, Curtis stopped responding to Padron's texts. D was charged with the distribution of hydrocodone, and oxycodone, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. At trial, the State called three witnesses: Padron, a surveillance officer, and the forensic scientist who identified the drugs. The court denied D’s motion for dismissal. D insisted that he did not know what was inside the bottle and that he blindly followed Curtis' directions. Curtis and his son were dating before his son's death, and after his death, Cottrell loaned her money to pay the bills. He testified that Curtis told him to come to QuikTrip to pick up the money she owed him; when he arrived, she told him to exchange the pill bottle for the money; and he naïvely complied to get his repayment. D claimed he did not know what '8 and 20' was. D admitted that he could see pills in the bottle. D said he handed the money straight to Curtis and did not keep any of it. The charging document and the conspiracy jury instruction alleged the same five overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance: 

'1. JENNIFER M. CURTIS responded to Officer Padron's text inquiry with details on prices and where to go to conclude the sale of hydrocodone and oxycodone.

 '2. JENNIFER M. CURTIS contacted D with the sales order she obtained from Officer Padrone [sic] and had, D appear at the designated time and place with the pills Officer Padron ordered.

 '3. D went to the transaction site which JENNIFER M. CURTIS had brokered between Officer Padron and D.

 '4. JENNIFER M. CURTIS waited by D's vehicle while he went to Officer Padron's vehicle and conducted the exchange brokered by JENNIFER M. CURTIS.

 '5. JENNIFER M. CURTIS met with D at his vehicle after the brokered transaction with Officer Padron was completed.'

D was found guilty on all counts and appealed. D claimed the court failed to give a unanimity instruction and P failed to produce sufficient evidence to support each one. The court of appeals affirmed. It held that alleged overt acts committed in furtherance of one conspiracy are not alternative means requiring jury unanimity. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.