For no particular reason at all, I started to recall a time when I served on a jury in California. The defendant was accused of possession of illegal drugs with the intent to sell. One of the possible scenarios, I’ve always wondered about, so I’m asking here. The legal hypothetical:
The accused is caught in possession of illegal drugs. For the sake of argument, assume it was demonstrated[sup]*[/sup] that he was transporting the drugs on behalf of another person (“the supplier”) and was to deliver the drugs to another person (“the dealer”). The accused was not actually intending to exchange the drugs for cash himself, but he was fully aware that it was the intent that the dealer would accept the drugs from him, and then sell those drugs to prospective buyers.
Is the accused guilty only of “possession” or “possession with intent to sell”? In other words, does the accused himself need to have the intent, or is it only required that the accused be aware of the intent of the overall transaction?
[sup]*[/sup]This was not actually demonstrated in the real case