Com. v. Colon

Decision Date17 September 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-P-604,91-P-604
Citation33 Mass.App.Ct. 304,598 N.E.2d 1143
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

Richard Abbott, Brookline, for defendant.

David R. Marks, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com.


KASS, Justice.

1. Entrapment. On August 10, 1989, and again on September 21, 1989, the defendant Colon sold three ounces of cocaine (more precisely, the first sale weighed 73.7 grams, and the second sale weighed 83.8 grams) to a Federal drug enforcement agent. Colon was charged with two counts of trafficking in more than twenty-eight grams of cocaine. 1 He elected to be tried without a jury and was found guilty on both counts. His principal defense was that the government had entrapped him into making the sales. Colon testified that Michael Allain, his immediate supervisor at work and the son of his employer, persistently importuned him to sell cocaine to acquaintances of his with whom he, Allain, claimed to be in "big trouble." Although Colon testified that he had resisted procuring cocaine for Allain's acquaintances, Allain punctuated his pleas and demands with the suggestion that Colon's job would be in jeopardy if he did not assist in satisfying the demands for cocaine of the men who were pressuring Allain. 2 There was also evidence from a sergeant of the Ashland police force that Allain earlier had sold drugs to an undercover agent operating under the sergeant's supervision and was told that he could help himself by cooperating with drug enforcement authorities to net other fish.

Unlike the facts in Commonwealth v. Thompson, 382 Mass. 379, 385, 416 N.E.2d 497 (1981), the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, suggested efforts beyond mere solicitation to purchase drugs from Colon. Evidence that a government agent pleaded, badgered, or argued with the defendant is enough to raise the entrapment issue. Commonwealth v. Shuman, 391 Mass. 345, 351, 462 N.E.2d 80 (1984). Commonwealth v. Hardy, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 909, 910, 575 N.E.2d 355 (1991). Kadis v. United States, 373 F.2d 370, 374 (1st Cir.1967). In the instant case, however, it is less than obvious that Allain was an agent of the government. Cooperation with the government in hope of favor is not sufficient; something is to be offered to or asked of the individual claimed to be the government agent. Commonwealth v. Rancourt, 399 Mass. 269, 274, 503 N.E.2d 960 (1987). Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401, 405, 540 N.E.2d 1325 (1989). As there was evidence that the government had sought Allain's cooperation in return for favorable treatment in connection with his own troubles with the government, there was some basis for a finding that Allain in the circumstances was a government agent. Allain was present at both buys by the Federal officers.

That there was evidence from which the trier of fact could find that Allain had acted as a government agent and that there had been an entrapment is hardly to say that such a finding was compelled, and it is at that point that the defendant's case begins to sag. Viewed favorably to the government, the evidence was that on the occasion of the August 10 sale, Colon dealt enthusiastically with the undercover agents, bargained some ten minutes about the price so that he could make a profit on the transaction, and discussed the prospect of future sales with the agents. On the occasion of the second sale, on September 21, there was again negotiation about price; the buyers and seller spent about thirty minutes together; and there was discussion of future business. The trial judge, of course, was not required to believe Colon's account of pressure from Allain to provide cocaine and could believe that Colon was a dealer in cocaine with a predisposition to sell cocaine to the customers Allain produced. Colon admitted that he and Allain had become "very friendly and we used to get high, do drugs together." It is not unlawful for the government to set out bait for someone who takes the lure with alacrity. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 361 Mass. 644, 651, 282 N.E.2d 394 (1972); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 382 Mass. at 384, 416 N.E.2d 497; Kadis v. United States, 373 F.2d at 374.

Nevertheless, the defendant argues that he is entitled to a reversal of his judgment of conviction because the judge misinstructed himself to the effect that there was no evidence that Allain was an agent of the government. That position rests on the following colloquy during defense counsel's closing argument.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: "Also a friend of his, someone he had befriended, someone who seemed to be plugged into a world that he wanted to be plugged into in terms of being the boss's son, whatever, was asking him a favor and would be in some trouble himself, to some extent unspecified trouble, but in large trouble himself if this man didn't help him out.

"I respectfully suggest to the Court that the inducement is fairly clear. Mr. Allain was told by the police in the spring of '89 that he was facing up to five years in jail if he didn't come up with a source of cocaine, and this man right here was as good a source as any, he was a cocaine user."

THE COURT: "That's the problem. There's no evidence of that."

DEFENSE COUNSEL: "I'm sorry, Your Honor?"

THE COURT: "There's no evidence that this man was acting as a government agent."

DEFENSE COUNSEL: "Your Honor, Mr. Allain said--Mr. Allain was in the car with the defendant. Mr. Allain--the first D.E.A. agent testified that--"

THE COURT: "Yes, but--"


THE COURT: "From the government's point of view, this man was the supplier for Allain, and Allain set him up."

We do not think that a judge's remarks in colloquy, whereby the judge tests propositions argued by counsel, ought to be translated into a ruling of law, as the defendant, in effect, asks. The judge may have been expressing, as certainly was warranted by the record, that evidence as to Allain's agency had been extremely thin. Nothing in the evidence described what, if any, specific inducements had been offered and by whom. See and compare United States v. Annese, 631 F.2d 1041, 1048 (1st Cir.1980). The judge's remarks in colloquy did not close discussion of the subject. Counsel picked up his argument and continued to attempt to persuade the court that Allain should be viewed as a government agent and that Colon's delivery of drugs had not been merely solicited but induced through persistent requests.

When a case is tried without a jury, the legal framework in which facts are to be found is not generally stated with the precision and amplitude of instructions to a jury. As an initial matter, it is presumed that the judge as trier of fact applies correct legal principles. See United States v. Van...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Rivera v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 7, 1993
    ...for the sales of the controlled substance which had been brought to the scene and provided by law enforcement. Com. v. Colon, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 304, 598 N.E.2d 1143 (1992). Any person cooperating with a law enforcement agency is a "law enforcement agent" for the purpose of entrapment. State v......
  • Com. v. Doyle
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • December 21, 2006
    ...356 Mass. 452, 459, 253 N.E.2d 346 (1969), citing Sorrells v. United States, supra at 441, 53 S.Ct. 210. See Commonwealth v. Colon, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 304, 306, 598 N.E.2d 1143 (1992) ("It is not unlawful for the government to set out bait for someone who takes the lure with alacrity"). The de......
  • Commonwealth v. Wilson, 17-P-254
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • November 7, 2018 a bench trial. See Commonwealth v. Milo M., 433 Mass. 149, 152, 740 N.E.2d 967 (2001), quoting Commonwealth v. Colon, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 308, 598 N.E.2d 1143 (1992) (in bench trial, "the legal framework in which facts are to be found is not generally stated with the precision and amp......
  • Commonwealth v. Liebenow
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • November 21, 2013
    ...that any “honest belief” on the defendant's part that the property was abandoned “would not be relevant.” See Commonwealth v. Colon, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 304, 308, 598 N.E.2d 1143 (1992) (judge sitting without jury may “make an express ruling on a disputed point of law,” preserving issue for app......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT