626 P.2d at 301. The predicate felony to Bankert’s conviction of felony murder, thus stands. ISSUE TWO — SIMULTANEOUS POSSESSION OF COCAINE BY BUYER AND SELLER Bankert also claims that jury instruction number ten, stating that “[t]wo or more people can have possession of a substance at the same time,” and the prosecutor’s related closing argument thwarted a jury determination of the possession element. He points out that no drug deal was ever consummated. “It is axiomatic,” he says, “that during a drug transaction, a buyer and seller cannot each possess a controlled substance simultaneously.” At most, Bankert avows he is guilty of attempted possession. See State v. Lopez, 100 N.M. 291, 292, 669 P.2d 1086, 1087 (1983); State v. Curry, 107 N.M. 133, 135, 753 P.2d 1321, 1323 (Ct.App.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 132, 753 P.2d 1320
holding that cocaine trafficking was not a forcible felony so as to preclude the defense of selfdefense when the killing occurred during an attempt to traffic in cocaine holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding that to qualify as an attempt to obstruct justice a defendant need not actually threaten the witness he need only attempt to influence him holding that the attempt to possess the cocaine can be inferred from defendants attempt to pick up the package holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible