WPC `Gs3cʂ&zZ>BVVOJC4E2#/b\c &gS>- kH F-ܔ"$p$&G"N0V`4# 9̼  s z՚Q{:9b8Kf p?fɉ|=RY@!Ǩ<|ZQY |KNa 9B& qt쵯|յHV]S:Ni]yTLG*wg:~fa!豰֖Ьs`1 ]-])mF3$܋ӪԋDF"vAs9@P1J01<9|F܁QKOW sŘ0.sI^I y [k& SV+U # L{5ʹOF-|"f\5ud#!x % 0w) 4- A 0P U:W m 0D N A U:/^ iiiuUN}U: B 0" D5 AQL 0 0DHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0X(`zZ$TRY,3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T  {Z='3|x((2%$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T   4k_XX   0  ,  AZ"Arial RegularU(#$  0   7 b]"   _XCXXX&XXC   Ad FILEDXCX&  October11,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,fAZ"Arial Regular lK'L (uH Z 6Times New Roman Regular,fAZ"Arial Regular d(|3]$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T    )!dxdxabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3]$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T   ($$   1  zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T   _њ4  8DXXdd8   "*US \\ (:!&)*XCXXX TR[A' LegalX3' LetterA' Legal3' LetterT_@PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  x`[B2.jzG`  `@E;` 8ttxP( G x@*DATJACKSON   <      D   FORPUBLICATION    <      D   Filed: 򀀀October11,1999T$T$MT$ | t STATEOFTENNESSEE,@##/D)   @##/D) APPELLEE,@##/D)  HARDINCOUNTY   @##/D)v.@##/D)  Hon.C.CreedMcGinley,Judge   @##/D)ALBERTDEWAYNNPORTER,@##/D)  No.02S019803CC00025 ~v @##/D) APPELLANT.@##/D) JB FORAPPELLANT: <      D   FORAPPELLEE:  RICHARDW.DEBERRY     D   JOHNKNOXWALKUP  Camden,TN  <      D   AttorneyGeneralandReporter zr    <      D   MICHAELE.MOORE   <      D   SolicitorGeneral   <      D   ELIZABETHB.MARNEY   <      D   AssistantAttorneyGeneral   <      D   Nashville,TN   <      D   ROBERTRADFORD   <      D   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   <      D   JOHNOVERTON   <      D   AssistantDistrictAttorney   <      D   Savannah,TN@oo)D XXCOPINION #XCX, #Ԉ X2P+0 AFFIRMED  CT$HOLDER,J.  v7n05   XCXXXC@,D OPINION    #X/XX XU#Wegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetherthecommonlaw"procuring   agentdefense"hasbeenabolishedbystatute.Weholdthatthe XXXX/procuringagent#X/XX Xs#   defensewasabolishedby XXXX/Tenn.CodeAnn.3911203(e)(2)whichexpressly xp statesthat"[d]efensesavailableundercommonlawareherebyabolished."The \T  trialcourtappropriatelydeclinedtoinstructthejuryontheprocuringagent <4  defense,andthedefendant'sconvictionforsellingacontrolledsubstancewas   supportedbytheevidence.      FACTS #X/XX X#   OnSeptember30,1994,KarlaAbbott,anundercoveroperativeforthe h` TwentyFourthJudicialDistrictDrugTaskForce,andBobbyWicker,an 4, informant,drovetoaprearrangedlocationandmetthedefendant.Thethree ! drovetoWickersapartment,whichwasacrossthestreetfromtheapartment " wherethedefendantplannedtoobtaincrackcocaineforWicker.Whileen $  route,thetransactionwasdiscussed,andtheydecidedtopurchasean 8ballof d&\" cocaine. 0((!$  Oncetheyarrived,Abbott,Wicker,andthedefendantenteredWickers +$( apartment.There,Abbottgavethedefendant$250tobuythecrackcocaine. -&* Thedefendantthenwentacrossthestreettotheresidenceofanindividual `/X(, referredtoonlyas Dee.ThepresenceofcertainpersonsinDeesapartment ,1$*. apparentlycausedsomeconcern,andthedefendantleftwithoutmakingthe 2+0 purchase. 4-2  6/4  ThedefendanteventuallymetDeeonthestreetinfrontoftheapartment  andpurchasedthecocainefromDee.AbbottandWickerwereabletoobserve  theexchangeofcocaineformoneybetweenDeeandthedefendant.The   defendantthenreturnedtoWickersapartmentwiththecocaine.Herefused, l d however,togivethecocainetoAbbottandWickeruntiltheyagreedtosmoke 80 someofthecrackcocainewithhim.Thedefendanthelpedtoprepareadevice   usedtoinhalethecocaine.HeandWickerthensmokedsomeofthecrack   cocaine.AbbottandWickerthendrovethedefendantbacktotheoriginal   meetingplace. h`  ThedefendantwasindictedforviolatingTenn.CodeAnn.3917417  whichprovidesthat:  8 Itisanoffenseforadefendanttoknowingly:Manufacturea d\ controlledsubstance;deliveracontrolledsubstance;sella JB controlledsubstance;orpossessacontrolledsubstancewithintent 0 ( tomanufacture,deliverorsellsuchcontrolledsubstance.t! ! ! Tenn.CodeAnn.3917417(a).Thedefendantrequestedthetrialjudgeto $! instructthejuryontheprocuringagentdoctrine.Thetrialjudgeheldthatthe z&r# "procuringagent"doctrinewasacommonlawdefensethatwasabolishedby F(>!% Tenn.CodeAnn.3911203(e)(2)whichprovidesthat"[d]efensesavailable * #' underthecommonlawareherebyabolished."Thetrialjudgedeclinedto +$) instructthejuryonthe"procuringagent"doctrine. -&+  Thedefendant'stestimonyindicatesthathewasaddictedtococaineand B1:*/ thathehaddevisedameanstosupporthisaddiction.Usingfundsprovidedby 3,1 personsdesiringdrugs,hepurchasedthosedrugsfromthirdparties.The 4-3 defendantwouldthenshareinaportionofthedrugswhenhedeliveredthe 6/5 drugstothepersonswhohadsuppliedthemoney.Thejuryconvictedthe  defendantofsellingcocaine.Amajorityofthecourtofcriminalappealsaffirmed.      ANALYSIS  l d " Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyrefusingtoinstructthe   juryonthe"procuringagent"doctrine.ThedefendantreliesonStatev.Baldwin,   867S.W.2d358(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).InBaldwin,theintermediateappellate   courtheldthatthe"procuringagent"doctrinewasviableasadefensewhena tl defendantischargedwiththesaleofdrugs.Baldwin,however,is @8 distinguishablefromthepresentcaseastheoffenseinBaldwinpredatedthe   TennesseeCriminalReformActof1989.   WiththepassageoftheCriminalReformActof1989,thelegislature ph madeprocuringordeliveringacontrolledsubstancethesamecrimeassellinga < 4 controlledsubstance.Tenn.CodeAnn.3917417;seegenerallyCarterv. " State,958S.W.2d620(Tenn.1997);Schadv.Arizona,501U.S.624(1991) #  (holdingpremeditatedmurderandfelonymurderarethesamecrimewithvarious %" meansofcommission).Itisillogicaltosurmisethatthelegislatureintendedthe l'd $ sameactivityprocuringordeliveringacontrolledsubstancetobebotha 8)0"& violationofandadefensetothesamecrime.Thecommonlawdefensesimply +#( cannotbereconciledlogicallywith3917417becausethelegislaturehas ,%* chosentopunishdeliveringorprocuringacontrolledsubstanceinthesame .', mannerandasthesamecrimeassellingacontrolledsubstance. h0`).  EvenifthisCourtweretoholdthatthe"procuringagent"defensewas 4,2 notabolishedbytheCriminalReformActof1989,theevidencewasstill 5.4 sufficienttosupportthedefendant'sconvictionforsellingacontrolledsubstance. 706 PriortotheCriminalReformActof1989,thecommonlawprocuringagent  defenserequiredthatthedefendant/agentwasinnowayinterestedinthe  transactionanddidnotderiveabenefitfromthetransaction.Seegenerally   Statev.Carter,636S.W.2d183(Tenn.1982);Galbreathv.State,216S.W.2d l d 689(Tenn.1948).Moreover,the"procuringagent"defenseisgenerallynot 80 applicableifthedefendantretainsorreceivespartofthecontrolledsubstance   involvedinthetransactionforhisorherownpersonaluse.Lovev.State,893   P.2d376(Nev.1995).    Thedefendantinthecasenowbeforeushadapersonalinterestinthe 4, drugtransaction.Thedefendantsupportedhishabitbyactingasamiddleman  indrugtransactions.Hewasnotmerelyadisinterestedorbenevolentconduit  forthebuyerinthiscase.Thedefendantperformedthetransactiontoobtaina  "cut"ofthecocaine.Hisactionswerethatofadrugdealingmiddlemaneven d\ thoughhis"cut"orbenefitfromthetransactionwasintheformofdrugsrather 0 ( thaninmonetarygain.SeeGalbreathv.State,216S.W.2d689(Tenn.1948) ! (holdingreceiptofcabfaresufficientfinancialinterest).Thedefendanthad #  multipleformertransactionswiththesellerinthiscase.Moreover,thedefendant %" statedtothebuyer,"Ifyoudon'tsmokeit,Idon'tsellit.It'saseasyasthat." `'X $ Clearly,theevidenceindicatesthatthedefendantwasnotadisinterestedparty ,)$"& andintendedtoreceiveacutofthedrugsbeforeheconsummatedthesale. *#(     CONCLUSION  .', 2 The"procuringagent"defensewasabolishedbyTenn.CodeAnn. 42,+0 39-11-203(e)(2),andtheevidenceinthiscaseissufficienttosupportthe 4,2 defendant'sconviction.Costsofthisappealshallbetaxedagainstthe 5.4 defendantforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. 706 Ї&     <      D T$T$MT$   <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE    Concurring:  R J Anderson,C.J. $  Drowota,Birch,andBarker,J.J.'4