1 Critical Thinking Drill Section 220 of the Criminal Code provides that a person can only be said to be guilty of the criminal sale of a controlled substance if one can prove that the said person was knowingly selling any quantity of a controlled substance. Equally, section 10(a) of the Criminal Code provides that one can only be convicted of the crime to sell a controlled substance if it can be demonstrated that there is evidence that proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The following sections of this essay will show that Nansen cannot be held to be guilty of the criminal sale of a controlled substance in so far as the facts of the case are concerned.
Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com
2 As has been noted above, the wording of section 220 requires an accused person to have the knowledge that they are selling a controlled substance. From the facts of the case, one cannot refute that cocaine is a substance that falls under the category of controlled substances. However, when Nansen offered to sell ‘cocaine’ to the man he met on the street, he was under the impression that what he was selling was plaster and not cocaine. Therefore, the ‘knowledge’ requirement of Section 220 of the Criminal Code cannot be said to have been met. Secondly, section 10(a) of the Criminal Code provides that a person can only be convicted of the criminal sale of a controlled substance if there is evidence that proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the law enforcement authorities cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because they cannot demonstrate that Nansen knew he was selling cocaine when he did it. In this regard, therefore, Nansen will not be held guilty for attempting to sell a controlled substance knowingly.