the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the “procuring agent” doctrine. The defendant relies on State v. Baldwin, 867 S.W.2d 358 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993). In Baldwin, the intermediate appellate court held that the “procuring agent” doctrine was viable as a defense when a defendant is charged with the sale of drugs. Baldwin, however, is distinguishable from the present case as the offense in Baldwin predated the Tennessee Criminal Reform Act of 1989. With the passage of the Criminal Reform Act of 1989, the legislature made procuring or delivering a controlled substance the same crime as selling a controlled substance. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-417; see generally Carter v. State, 958 S.W.2d 620 (Tenn.1997); Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (<HOLDING>). It is illogical to surmise that the
holding that when the evidence shows that the defendant is guilty of premeditated and felony murder a jury instruction on unanimity is irrelevant holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder holding that there is no crime of attempted felony murder in florida holding premeditated murder and felony murder are the same crime with various means of commission