Hogan v. State, 45781
| Decision Date | 06 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45781,45781 |
| Citation | 233 So.2d 786 |
| Parties | Lynch C. HOGAN alias Lynch Jack Hogan v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jerry T. Johnston, Brandon, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Samuel H. Wilkins, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Lynch Hogan was convicted in the Circuit Court of Rankin County of the unlawful sale of drugs (amphetamine) contrary to Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 6831-02 (1952) and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the penitemtiary. He appeals from that conviction and sentence.
Only one error is assigned for reversal and is as follows: 'The court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant on the grounds that defendant had been entrapped by Federal Agents.' (Emphasis added).
It appears from the record that on the evening of February 28, 1967, two agents of the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, were in Rankin County in the 'undercover' discharge of their official duties. At Pearl Amoco Truck Stop on Highway 80, these agents inquired of a waitress as to the whereabouts of an individual (whom they suspected of being engaged in unlawfully selling durgs) and told her that they wished to buy some 'pills' from him. The waitress said that she did not know the person inquired about, but that Hogan, who operated the service station part of the truck stop, would probably have 'pills' which he would sell to them. Thereupon, the agents contracted Hogan and told him that they would like to buy 1,000 capsules, of the kind sometimes referred to as 'pep pills.' Hogan told the agents to meet him in the shower room in five minutes. When Hogan entered the shower room he had with him a plastic bottle labeled 'Dextro Amphetamine Sulfate' containing 1,000 capsules. These he sold to the agents for $100 cash. A chemist testified that an analysis of the contents of the bottle disclosed that the capsules contained dextro amphetamine sulfate. There was proof that Hogan was neither a licensed pharmacist nor a licensed physician in the State of Mississippi.
Hogan's defense was that he had not been present in Rankin County at the time of the purchase of the drugs by the agents but had been attending a horse show in Louisiana. This was in direct contradiction of the testimony of the agents who positively identified him as the person from whom they had purchased the drugs.
In McLemore v. State, 241 Miss. 664, 675, 125 So.2d 86, 91 (1960) this Court said:
The word 'entrapment', as a defense, has come to mean the act of inducing or leading a person to commit a crime not originally contemplated by him, for the purpose of trapping him in its commission and prosecuting him for the offense. However, defendant cannot rely on the fact that on opportunity was intentionally given him to commit the crime which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayre v. State, 57110
...304 So.2d 641 (Miss.1974); Hamilton v. State, 295 So.2d 739 (Miss.1974); McCormick v. State, 279 So.2d 596 (Miss.1973); Hogan v. State, 233 So.2d 786 (Miss.1970); Accord, Mathews v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 883, 889, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (White, J., If an accused is on trial ......
-
Kemp v. State
...when they merely provide an opportunity to violate the law. McCormick v. State, 279 So.2d 596, 597 (Miss.1973), Hogan v. State, 233 So.2d 786, 788 (Miss.1970), McLendon v. State, 247 Miss. 510, 512, 153 So.2d 711, 712 (1963). Rather, for entrapment, criminal intent simply must not originate......
-
Jones v. State
...this case from Strait v. State, 77 Miss. 693, 27 So. 617 (1900) and cited Averitt, Supra, McLemore, supra, and Hogan v. State, 233 So.2d 786 (Miss.1970) to the effect that in our jurisdiction the rule of law is that if the criminal intent originates with the accused and the officers merely ......
-
Miller v. State, 45773
...and means for the accused to consummate the purpose of the criminal intent that such does not constitute entrapment. See also Hogan v. State, Miss., 233 So.2d 786, decided April 6, 1970, wherein we adopted that position stated in McLemore v. State, 241 Miss. 664, 675, 125 So.2d 86, 91, 126 ......