To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Washington v. Gladstone

Citation. State v. Gladstone, 78 Wn.2d 306, 474 P.2d 274, 42 A.L.R.3d 1061
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Defendant spoke to a Government agent about where the agent can get marijuana. The agent followed the directions given by Defendant and purchased marijuana. Defendant was arrested and convicted of aiding and abetting a sale of marijuana.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

To be charged and convicted with the aiding and abetting of a sale of marijuana, there must be specific facts to support a connection between an individual, the seller, and the sale of marijuana.


Gladstone was spoke to Douglas MacArthur Thompson, without knowing he was an agent of the police, and told him that he knew someone, Kent, who might be willing to sell him marijuana. Gladstone did not know the Kent’s address, however, he sketched him directions to his location. Thompson went to Kent’s residence and bought marijuana. Subsequently, Kent was arrested and convicted of selling Thompson approximately eight ounces of marijuana, and Gladstone was found guilty of aiding and abetting Kent in the unlawful sale of marijuana. At trial, Thompson did not testify that that Gladstone had previously interacted with Kent, that Kent and Gladstone were working together, or any conduct that one can infer that Gladstone was connected to Kent’s marijuana sale. Moreover, Gladstone, at trial, testified that he knew where Kent lived because he was a student at his university, and he drove him home one day from the student union. Additionally, Gladstone testified that the encounter with Thompson occurred differently. Gladstone indicated that Thompson asked him if he knew Kent, before Gladstone even mentioned his name.


Whether the state has met its burden in proving that Gladstone aided and abetted Kent in the sale of marijuana to Thompson.


No, the state has not met its burden in proving that Gladstone aided and abetted Kent in the sale of marijuana to Thompson.


Putting the facts in the light most favorable to the state, the court still did not find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the charged crime, aiding and abetting. The record is absent of any evidence that Gladstone communicated with Kent to infer that he counseled, encouraged, hired, commanded, or procured Kent to sell marijuana to Thompson.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following