In prosecution for possession and sale of marijuana and cocaine and conspiring to sell controlled substances, defendants’ contention that they were merely “purchasing agents” for an undercover police officer, and thus were immune from prosecution, was incorrect; such contention merely entitled the defendants to a “purchasing agent” instruction given to the jury, if the evidence did not foreclose it. Ursino v. Sheriff, Washoe County, 91 Nev. 409, 537 P.2d 316, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 655 (Nev. 1975).
In a prosecution for sale and possession of a controlled substance, contention that the court should have instructed the jury on the “purchasing agent” defense was without merit, because the purchasing agent defense is inapplicable to the crime of possession of a controlled substance. Buckley v. State, 95 Nev. 602, 600 P.2d 227, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 707 (Nev. 1979).
Prejudice from unsubstantiated allegations in sentencing report.
An abuse of discretion was found when the defendant’s sentence was prejudiced from consideration of an unsubstantiated allegation contained in a pre-sentence report that the defendant was heavily involved in narcotics trafficking. Goodson v. State, 98 Nev. 493, 654 P.2d 1006, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 512 (Nev. 1982).
Unconstitutional search was conducted where, during a pat-down search following a routine traffic stop, the officer felt something small in defendant’s pocket with an open hand and immediately ruled out that the object was a knife, gun, dirk, dagger, or other hidden instrument for the assault of a police officer, but continued to palpate the object, changing his hand so as to feel the object with his fingertips, discovering that the item was a vial of the size and shape commonly used to contain contraband. State v. Conners, 116 Nev. 184, 994 P.2d 44, 116 Nev. Adv. Rep. 18, 2000 Nev. LEXIS 18 (Nev. 2000).