Bakotich v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4354.,4354. |
| Citation | 4 F.2d 386 |
| Parties | BAKOTICH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles W. Robison, of Astoria, Or., and E. M. Morton, of Portland, Or., for plaintiff in error.
John S. Coke, U. S. Atty., and Millar E. McGilchrist, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Portland, Or.
Before ROSS, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff in error was convicted under an indictment charging unlawful possession and sale of moonshine whisky and maintenance of a nuisance. He assigns as error the refusal of the court to give certain requested instructions pertaining to entrapment and to the giving of an instruction upon the use of decoys.
The first request refused was to the effect that, where criminal intent originates in the mind of the defendant, the fact that officers used decoys or truthful statements to furnish opportunity for the accused to commit the crime, in order to prosecute him, is not a defense, but that, if the accused never conceived any intention of committing the offense, the fact that the officer incited, or by persuasion and misrepresentation induced, him to commit the offense charged, in order to entrap him, then the accused is entitled to acquittal. In the second request the court was asked to charge that, where criminal intent originates in the mind of the entrapping person, and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged, as a rule no conviction can be had, and the criminality of the act is not affected by any question of consent, and that if, in the case before the jury, it was found that the officer lured or induced defendant to commit the offense charged, in order to prosecute him, then the verdict should be acquittal.
In the instructions given the court referred to the use of a decoy, saying that, for the purpose of determining whether a crime had been committed, an officer may approach a person suspected and propose to purchase liquor from him, and that in the case then before the jury the officer had the right to go to defendant and propose to buy whisky for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the defendant was engaged in the business of selling liquor. The testimony of the prosecution was to the effect that Bakotich kept a place where soft drinks, tobacco, and cigars were sold; that about the date named in the information the officer (McGhee) went into defendant's place, and there bought and paid for some liquor served to him by defendant. Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Demma
...they did not commit a crime. It logically follows that absent the commission of a crime there can be no entrapment. Bakotich v. United States, 9 Cir., 1925, 4 F.2d 386. The trial court understood this situation and very properly refused to inject into the case a question which could have no......
-
United States v. Rutkin
...209 U.S. 36, 38, 28 S.Ct. 422, 52 L.Ed. 670; Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 132, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47 L.Ed. 100; Bakotich v. United States, 9 Cir., 4 F.2d 386, 387. In Kleibor v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 4 Cir., 159 F.2d 894, the attempt was made by plaintiff's attorney to take disconnected ......
-
Ortega v. United States, 19687.
...Hamilton v. United States, 221 F.2d 611 (5th Cir. 1955); Eastman v. United States, 212 F.2d 320, 322 (9th Cir. 1954); Bakotich v. United States, 4 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1925). Thus, to utilize the entrapment defense, an accused must admit he committed acts which constitute a crime, but assert ......
-
Eastman v. United States
...they did not commit a crime. It logically follows that absent the commission of a crime there can be no entrapment. Bakotich v. United States, 9 Cir., 1925, 4 F.2d 386. The trial court understood this situation and very properly refused to inject into the case a question which could have no......