Cottman v. State
886 A.2d 932, 2005 Md. App. LEXIS 274, 165 Md. App. 679 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who aids and abets the distribution of a controlled dangerous substance by acting as a lookout and vetting the buyer is also criminally liable for possession of that substance, as accomplice liability extends to the underlying crime of possession.
Facts:
- In the early morning, an undercover police officer, Detective Moore, was driving an unmarked vehicle when a woman, Ms. Benson, called out to him.
- Benson and Nathaniel Cottman, Jr. approached Detective Moore's vehicle.
- Benson asked Moore if he was a police officer, to which he replied he was not.
- Cottman then leaned in and asked Moore, "Are you sure you’re not police?", and Moore again denied it.
- After Benson smelled Moore's breath and declared him "all right," Cottman walked to the front of the vehicle and began looking up and down the street in a manner consistent with being a lookout.
- While Cottman acted as a lookout, Benson sold Detective Moore $20 worth of cocaine which she had retrieved from her mouth.
- After the transaction, Cottman and Benson walked away together.
- Upon his arrest shortly thereafter, a search of Cottman revealed no drugs or money.
Procedural Posture:
- Nathaniel Cottman, Jr. was tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, a state trial court.
- On the morning of the trial, Cottman's counsel requested a postponement, which the administrative judge's designee denied.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial where the judge sat as the fact-finder.
- After the State presented its case, Cottman's motion for judgment of acquittal was denied.
- The trial court found Cottman guilty of distribution of cocaine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and possession of cocaine.
- Cottman was sentenced as a repeat offender to ten years' incarceration for the distribution conviction, with the other convictions merged for sentencing.
- Cottman (appellant) then appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence that a defendant questioned an undercover officer to confirm he was not police and then acted as a lookout during a drug sale conducted by another person sufficient to sustain convictions for distribution, possession, and conspiracy to distribute cocaine under an aiding and abetting theory?
Opinions:
Majority - Kenney, J.
Yes, the evidence is sufficient. A person who encourages, aids, or abets the perpetrator in the commission of an offense is a principal in the second degree and is as culpable as the perpetrator. Cottman's actions went beyond mere presence; by questioning the officer and then acting as a lookout, he actively participated in and facilitated the drug transaction. This assistance makes him liable for distribution as an aider and abettor. The court further held, as a matter of first impression in Maryland, that aiding and abetting the distribution of a substance necessarily includes aiding and abetting the principal's possession of that substance. Finally, the agreement required for a conspiracy conviction can be inferred from the coordinated actions of Cottman and Benson to facilitate the sale.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying accomplice liability in Maryland drug law, particularly for the crime of possession. It formally establishes that an individual can be convicted of possession on an aiding and abetting theory, even without having actual or constructive possession of the contraband. The ruling reinforces that actions such as acting as a lookout constitute active participation, not mere presence, and are sufficient to establish culpability for the underlying crime and any necessarily included offenses. This decision provides a strong basis for prosecutors to charge all knowing participants in a drug transaction, regardless of their specific role or whether they physically handled the narcotics.
