Gill v. State

Moylan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Mike Gill, also known as Michael Gill, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County by a jury, presided over by Judge Ralph G. Shure, under each count of a three-count indictment, charging (1) the sale of LSD, (2) conspiracy to sell LSD, and (3) possession of LSD. On appeal, he contends: (1) That the trial court committed error in refusing to make the State reveal the name of a confidential informant, (2) That he was entitled to the defense of entrapment, (3) That the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a) a “sale, barter or trade” of LSD, b) possession of LSD ⁵⁹⁵ by the appellant, or c) a conspiracy between the appellant and one William Mark Curtis. In the autumn of 1969, Detective Corporal Fremeau of the Montgomery County Police Department was, in his undercover capacity, posing as a trafficker in contraband drugs.

Through the confidential informant, the revelation of whose identity is at issue, Detective Fremeau was put in touch with William Mark Curtis. Detective Fremeau requested of Curtis some LSD. Curtis did not have any but agreed to make an effort to obtain some. He then drove with both Detective Fremeau and the informant to the Four Corners Shopping Center in Silver Spring, Maryland.

He parked his car at an Esso Station and made a telephone call. Curtis testified that the call was to the appellant. The appellant agreed to obtain LSD and to bring it to an agreed meeting place with Curtis. Shortly thereafter Curtis, accompanied still by Detective Fremeau and the informant, met with the appellant in the rear of the Woodmorc Shopping Center in Silver Spring.

Curtis approached the appellant and asked the appellant whether or not he had “it”. The appellant replied in the negative and walked away. Curtis followed him. Detective Fremeau had been with Curtis and the appellant during this brief verbal exchange but then remained discreetly behind as the other two walked off and ultimately entered the appellant’s automobile.

The informant was not even standing there as part of the group during the initial verbal exchange but later walked up and joined Detective Fremeau as they waited for Curtis to return. Detective Fremeau observed Curtis and the appellant enter the appellant’s automobile. He further observed the appellant take a package from the general area of under the dashboard of his automobile or from the glove compartment and hand it to Curtis. Curtis was then observed placing the package in his left coat pocket.

Curtis and the appellant conversed for approximately thirty seconds. Curtis then walked away from the automobile and the appellant drove away from the area. Curtis then returned ⁵⁹⁶ to where Detective Fremeau was standing with the informant and the three of them then drove away in the informant’s automobile. Once inside the informant’s automobile, Curtis produced the package and sold to Detective Fremeau five tablets of LSD, 2 tablets of PCP and two capsules of mescaline.

Subsequent chemical analysis verified that the five tablets of supposed LSD were in fact LSD. Detective Fremeau paid $16 to Curtis. The appellant contends that because the informant was a witness to these events of November 29, 1969, generally and because he might have observed the transfer of a package from the appellant to Curtis