French v. State, CR76--120
| Decision Date | 11 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. CR76--120,CR76--120 |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 680,260 Ark. 473 |
| Parties | William Lawrence FRENCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
William M. Ravkind, Dallas, Tex., Jerry D. Patchen, Houston, Tex., W. B. Putman, Fayetteville, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Gary B. Isbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
For reversal of a marijuana conviction in violation of the Controlled Substance Act, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 82--2617 (Supp.1975), appellant William Lawrence French raises the three points hereinafter discussed.
POINT 1. The record admittedly contains evidence, if believed, that would establish the defense of entrapment. The trial court recognized the sufficiency of the evidence, but over objections of appellant to the word 'unconscious' instructed the jury '. . . Entrapment exists where the criminal design or act originated, not with the accused, but with an officer of the law or his agent who lures the defendant into the unconscious commission of an unlawful act by persuasion, deceptive representation or inducement . . ..' We hold that the trial court erred in using the word 'unconscious,' because it is not an element in the defense of entrapment. See Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), where Chief Justice Hughes pointed out that the duty of officers of the law to prevent, not to punish crime and that it was a gross abuse of authority for the officers to cause or create a crime in order to punish it. See also Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41--209 (Supp.1975).
POINT 2. Appellant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to advise the jury that it was his burden to establish the defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence, seems to have been raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore we do not reach that issue.
POINT 3. In addition to the evidence from which the jury could have found that a Government agent by the name of Haas had planned the acquisition of the marijuana and persuaded appellant to assist in its acquisition for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting appellant and others, the trial court ruled inadmissible evidence showing that Haas was paid by the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Government upon a contingent arrangement depending upon whether he makes a case and how many arrests result. To support the trial court's ruling, the State mentions that Haas did not testify and concludes that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoover v. State, CR-77-187
...dismissal argued here were not then urged in the trial court and cannot properly be raised for the first time on appeal. French v. State, 260 Ark. 473, 541 S.W.2d 680; Dyas v. State, 260 Ark. 303, 539 S.W.2d 251. Furthermore, appellant has not made a convincing argument or furnished any aut......
- Allen v. State
-
Spears v. State
...was not a proper basis for excluding, as collateral, testimony relating to his activities with relation to Spears. French v. State, 260 Ark. 473, 541 S.W.2d 680. Appellant also should have been permitted to show the charges placed against Caldwell and their disposition, particularly in view......
-
Brascomb v. State
...and Lincoln is a collateral issue and, therefore, the limitation on cross-examination was proper. We cannot agree. In French v. State, 260 Ark. ---, 541 S.W.2d 680 (1976), the contention was made that a contingent arrangement, which depended upon whether an informer made a case and how many......