People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45 (1978)
In narcotics sales, a defendant is not entitled to an agency defense jury charge unless there is evidence they acted solely as an extension of the buyer, not as a middleman or broker seeking personal benefit.
Summary
Argibay and Di Guiseppe were convicted of selling cocaine. Argibay argued he was entitled to an agency defense instruction, claiming he merely facilitated the sale between the buyer (an undercover officer) and his supplier. Di Guiseppe challenged the agency charge he received, but failed to object at trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that an agency charge is inappropriate when the evidence shows the defendant acted as a middleman for personal gain, not purely as the buyer’s agent. The court also addressed a juror misconduct issue, finding it waived because defense counsel declined the court’s offer to question the juror.
Facts
Undercover officers arranged to buy cocaine through Joseph Di Guiseppe, who involved his brother, Anthony Di Guiseppe. The officers met with Anthony Di Guiseppe, who then took them to Argibay’s apartment. Argibay’s supplier delivered the cocaine, and after testing, the officer paid Argibay $1,700. The officer gave a small amount of cocaine to Di Guiseppe, and saw Argibay give Di Guiseppe money. Argibay later refused to sell more cocaine directly, stating he wasn’t making enough money. At trial, Argibay called character witnesses, while Di Guiseppe called none. Neither defendant testified.
Procedural History
Argibay and Anthony Di Guiseppe were convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. They appealed, arguing entitlement to an agency defense charge and juror misconduct. The Appellate Division affirmed their convictions, with one Justice dissenting. They then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether, in a narcotics sale case, the jury must be charged on the agency defense when the evidence indicates the defendant’s involvement was that of a middleman or broker.
- Whether the agency charge given to Di Guiseppe was erroneous for precluding the defense if the defendant received any financial gain.
- Whether the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after learning a juror said