State v. Mendoza
Rhode Island Supreme Court
889 A.2d 153 (2005)
- Written by Caroline Milne, JD
Facts
Undercover detectives Angelo A’Vant and Fabio Zuena were patrolling a Providence neighborhood in an unmarked car when Robert Clement approached and asked whether the detectives were looking to buy crack cocaine. Clement led Detective A’Vant to a nearby house while Detective Zuena waited in the car. Detective A’Vant handed Clement $20 in prerecorded buy money to purchase the drugs. Clement rang a doorbell, and Antonio Mendoza (defendant) answered the door. Mendoza and Clement went inside the house and reemerged a few moments later. Detective A’Vant saw Mendoza hand Clement a clear baggie containing crack cocaine. Back at the car, Clement was immediately arrested after handing Detective A’Vant the baggie of drugs. Mendoza was arrested a short time later. A jury convicted Mendoza of conspiracy to violate the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act. Mendoza moved for acquittal, arguing that there could be no conspiracy because the underlying offense—the sale and delivery of drugs—presupposed as an element of the crime that both parties agreed to the sale and delivery (this is known as Wharton’s Rule). Thus, Mendoza argued, the conspiracy as charged was a legal impossibility. The trial judge denied Mendoza’s motion. Mendoza appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.