Where the evidence is insufficient to distinguish degrees of participation among co-offenders in drug cultivation, a sentencing judge errs in drawing distinctions that result in materially different sentences. The utility of comparing co-offender roles is limited by the extent to which material facts are known, and 'no comment' interviews by some participants may leave the evidence too sparse to support differential sentencing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.