Com. v. Tracey

• Decision Date: 13 December 1993
• Citation: Com. v. Tracey, 624 N.E.2d 84, 416 Mass. 528 (Mass. 1993)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Christopher W. TRACEY.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 84

624 N.E.2d 84

416 Mass. 528

COMMONWEALTH v. Christopher W. TRACEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Plymouth.

Argued Oct. 6, 1993.

Decided Dec. 13, 1993.

Randolph Gioia, Boston, for the defendant.

Robert C. Thompson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.

LIACOS, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Christopher W. Tracey, was indicted by a Plymouth County grand jury for trafficking in cocaine with a net weight of one hundred or more grams but less than two hundred grams, in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 32E(b) (1992 ed.). After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen to twenty years at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Cedar Junction. The defendant appealed his conviction to the Appeals Court, arguing that the trial judge (1) erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment; (2) abused his discretion by denying a continuance so that the defendant could obtain the presence of a character witness, and (3) erred in refusing to compel the testimony of a witness who had asserted his privilege against self-incrimination. We transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion. Because we order reversal on the first alleged error, we need not discuss the second, but briefly comment on the third claim of error because the issue may recur on a new trial.

For purposes of this appeal, we need recite only the testimony of the defendant, which he claims raised the defense of entrapment. In February, 1991, the defendant lived in Brockton with his girl friend (then pregnant), their child, and his girl friend's older daughter. He was employed part time as a roofer. On February 19, 1991, the defendant's girlfriend told the defendant that one Ronald Grover had telephoned several times that day seeking to speak to the defendant. ¹ When Grover called again, the defendant spoke to him. Grover told the defendant that he had just received $5,000 and wanted to purchase a large amount of cocaine. Grover wanted the defendant to put Grover in contact with a Paul McCratic, an alleged dealer, and offered the defendant $500 to do so. The defendant asked Grover why he did not contact McCratic directly and Grover responded that he knew the defendant was friendly with McCratic whereas Grover was not. ² The defendant agreed to meet Grover at the Brockton Cafe, near the defendant's home.

The defendant testified that he went to the Brockton Cafe because he had planned to get a pizza at the cafe and, that he did not want to continue the telephone conversation in front of his girl friend because "[s]he would freak out" and he "was panicking" and he did not want Grover to come to his home.

The defendant met Grover at the cafe and Grover again asked the defendant to introduce him to McCratic. The defendant resisted, then Grover acted "like crazy" and told the defendant that all the defendant had to do to make $500 was to introduce Grover to McCratic. At this point, undercover State police trooper Thomas arrived. Thomas shook hands with Grover and attempted to shake hands with the defendant, who refused. Thomas sat down with Grover and the defendant and asked Grover if this was "Chris," referring to the defendant. Grover introduced Thomas as his friend who was putting up some of the money for the cocaine. In the ensuing conversation, the defendant again told Grover and now Thomas to go to McCratic themselves. Thomas acted like a "tough guy" and said to the defendant, "I want to deal with you," and also suggested that he wanted to set up a drug distribution network in the area in which the defendant could get involved and make money. Thomas showed the defendant "some money." The defendant gave "negative, cockie answers" to Thomas because Thomas "was coming on to [him] stronger." Thomas and Grover discussed the price and quantity of cocaine while the defendant ate pizza. Thomas got angry because no meeting with McCratic was arranged, so he left. The defendant then yelled at Grover for seeking to involve him in such matters. After paying for the pizza, he went home.

The following day, February 20, when the defendant arrived home from work, his girl friend informed him that Grover again had called repeatedly throughout the day. She was upset by these calls. Grover called after the defendant arrived home and spoke to the defendant. Grover apologized for the events which occurred the previous night and again offered the defendant $500 for an introduction to McCratic. The defendant refused, but Grover was insistent. The defendant again told Grover to call McCratic himself.

After the last conversation with Grover, the defendant called McCratic to tell him that Grover and Thomas wanted to purchase cocaine and to warn McCratic not to get involved with the pair. McCratic indicated a willingness to sell the cocaine but also told the defendant that he (McCratic) would make it clear to Grover that the defendant wanted no involvement in the transaction.

On February 21, the defendant and McCratic drove to Grover's home on West Ashland Street in Brockton. Upon arrival, the defendant and McCratic saw Thomas and Grover in an automobile in the driveway of Grover's home. McCratic spoke briefly to Grover and Thomas and then drove the defendant home. About an hour after returning home, the defendant received a telephone call from Grover. Grover told the defendant that Thomas was angry at the defendant because Thomas had given money to McCratic but McCratic had not delivered any drugs. Grover said that Thomas had plans to go to the defendant's house, so the defendant agreed to meet Thomas and Grover at the cafe instead. ³

The defendant ran to the cafe and stood in front of the building for several minutes before he realized that Thomas was in his truck which was parked in the middle of the cafe's parking lot. The defendant told Thomas that he did not intend to stay there until Grover arrived and did not intend to go to McCratic's house with Thomas and Grover. Thomas and the defendant argued briefly and swore at each other, and Thomas demanded the return of his money. The defendant then ran off to McCratic's house, intending to tell McCratic to return Thomas' money.

At McCratic's house, the defendant met McCratic and one Hernandez. The defendant told McCratic to return Thomas' money and to cancel the deal. McCratic told the defendant that he had not received the cocaine and that he intended to meet with Thomas to return the money. In fact, McCratic had the cocaine, which Hernandez had delivered. The defendant, McCratic, and Hernandez drove to the cafe and met Thomas. Earlier that evening, Thomas had "butt[ed]" Grover out of the investigation because he was no longer necessary. The defendant spoke briefly to Thomas to tell him that McCratic had the money and then began to walk away. McCratic delivered the cocaine to Thomas, and the defendant, McCratic, and Hernandez were quickly arrested by undercover police officers on a prearranged signal by Thomas. ⁴

1. Entrapment. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial judge erred in refusing to give the jury an instruction on entrapment as the defendant requested. ⁵ The judge may have based his refusal to give the instruction on two grounds: first, that the defendant could not claim entrapment and also deny that he committed the crime, ⁶ and second, that there was no evidence which would support an entrapment defense. ⁷ Because we are unsure whether only one of these grounds was the basis for the judge's refusal, we discuss both.

a. Inconsistent defense. When defendant's counsel requested an instruction on entrapment, the judge refused to give such instruction because the defendant denied committing the crime. See note 6, supra. The judge may have been guided by the line of cases from other jurisdictions which have held that a defendant may not deny committing the acts constituting the crime and also assert the defense of entrapment. See, e.g., Young v. State, 308 Ark. 647, 651-652, 826 S.W.2d 814 (1992); State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431, 436, 378 A.2d 534 (1977). Under this view, the entrapment defense may be raised only where the defendant admits doing the deed but disclaims that he formed his own intent. McCarroll v. State, 294 Ala. 87, 87, 312 So.2d 382 (1975). Other jurisdictions, however, have allowed defendants to claim entrapment and also to deny committing the crime. See, e.g., Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 65, 108 S.Ct. 883, 887, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988); People v. Perez, 62 Cal.2d 769, 775, 44 Cal.Rptr. 326, 401 P.2d 934 (1965). See also People v. D'Angelo, 401 Mich. 167, 178, 257 N.W.2d 655 (1977). ⁸ Still other jurisdictions have permitted the availability of the entrapment defense in situations where the defendant denies the intent element of the crime but admits to the requisite acts. See, e.g., State v. Sanders, 95 N.C.App. 56, 61, 381 S.E.2d 827 (1989), citing State v. Luster, 306 N.C. 566, 581 n. 4, 295 S.E.2d 421 (1982).

This court has not yet explicitly stated whether a defendant may deny committing the crime charged and also assert the defense of entrapment. We have permitted defendants in criminal actions to raise "inconsistent" defenses in other situations. See Commonwealth v. Fickett, 403 Mass. 194, 201, 526 N.E.2d 1064 (1988) (defendant could assert that he never entered joint venture and, alternatively, that he withdrew); Lannon v. Commonwealth, 379 Mass. 786, 400 N.E.2d 862 (1980) (murder and voluntary manslaughter); Commonwealth v. Barton, 367 Mass. 515, 518, 326 N.E.2d 885 (1975) (accident and self-defense). In civil actions, parties freely may assert inconsistent claims and defenses. Mass.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(2), 365 Mass. 749 (1974).

This court has recognized entrapment as a valid defense. "Entrapment, so-called, is a relatively simple and very desirable concept which was unfortunately misnamed with some resulting confusion. It is socially...