Jackson v. State
Citation | 384 So.2d 134 |
Decision Date | 30 October 1979 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 59 |
Parties | Marvin JACKSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Sterling G. Culpepper, Jr., Smith, Bowman, Thagard, Crook & Culpepper, Montgomery, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of selling cyclohexamine in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Code 1975, § 20-2-1, et seq.). He was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years.
The principal contest on appeal is as to the availability to defendant of the defense of entrapment.
Three witnesses testified on call of the State. Only one testified as to the sale. The combined testimony of the other two showed that the product sold was cyclohexamine.
Defendant did not take the stand. No witness in his behalf testified as to a sale. The evidence for the defendant was limited largely to testimony as to his character or reputation.
As the chief issue on appeal hinges on the testimony of the only witness as to a sale, we endeavor hereby to summarize his testimony. He was Mr. Donald S. Williams, an agent of Alabama Beverage Control Board, Alcohol and Narcotic Enforcement Division, engaged in undercover work.
According to the testimony of Mr. Williams, about 5:50 P.M. on Friday, August 18, 1978, at Room 118, Holiday Inn East, Montgomery, he purchased from defendant approximately one ounce of cyclohexamine and paid defendant therefor eleven hundred dollars. He also gave defendant the sum of one hundred dollars to pay him for his plane fare to Montgomery from where defendant lived in Oklahoma. The particular transaction was in the presence of Charles Gates, a resident of Elmore County, a "confidential informant" working with Mr. Williams and other agents at the time, whom Mr. Williams had known for about six weeks and who Mr. Williams understood had been guilty of violations of Controlled Substances Act, had been charged therewith and was working with the authorities in accordance with an understanding that he might be placed on probation for his offenses. Gates was being paid his expenses from public funds, and had been paid therefrom by Mr. Williams the sum of fifty dollars with which to pay for a room (Room 118) at the Holiday Inn to be occupied by defendant.
The witness did not know defendant until the afternoon of the sale. About the middle of the afternoon Mr. Gates, in a State automobile assigned to Mr. Williams, drove Mr. Williams to a house or apartment on Fifth Street in Montgomery, left him there, went to the airport to pick up defendant and returned with defendant in about thirty minutes. He drove into the driveway of the house or apartment where Mr. Williams had been left. The horn of the automobile was blown, and Mr. Williams came to it, was introduced to defendant by Mr. Gates and rode with them to the Holiday Inn. They went to a lounge before going to Room 118; each had a drink, and about 5:30 P.M. the three went to Room 118.
There is no evidence as to what transpired between Gates and defendant prior to the time Williams met them on Fifth Street and went with them to the Holiday Inn, but it seems clear and undisputed that whatever arrangements were made for defendant to come from his home in Oklahoma to Montgomery, Alabama, were made between Gates and defendant. Gates did not testify in the case. Before the trial commenced and before a jury was selected to try the case, counsel for defendant made it known to the court that he had requested a subpoena for Charles Gates. Thereupon a lengthy colloquy among counsel, the court and others transpired relative to the whereabouts of Gates, and it was made known to the court that his whereabouts was not known by the State, its attorneys or agents then in court of the Alabama Beverage Control Board, and he was no longer a confidential informer of the State. At the conclusion of the colloquy and just before the jury was selected, defendant moved for a continuance "so that we could have an opportunity to locate Mr. Charles Gates." The motion was overruled.
At the conclusion of the evidence for the State, defendant moved for an exclusion of the evidence. The record shows:
When defendant rested, the jury was excused to go to the jury room and the following occurred:
Defendant's requested charge, which the court refused, on the subject of entrapment was as follows:
Notwithstanding testimony by Mr. Williams as to what may be considered as instructions to Mr. Gates as to what he should tell the defendant in making arrangements for him to come to Montgomery from Oklahoma to make a sale of a controlled substance, we cannot assume that Mr. Gates followed such instructions punctiliously. Mr. Williams was an agent with many years of experience in undercover work. His answers to questions propounded him on cross-examination, as well as direct examination, disclose a commendable awareness of the distinction between an inducement that does not constitute an entrapment and conduct that does constitute the same. This, however, does not force a conclusion that a non-expert in such field, a suspected felon such as Gates, could or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lambeth v. State
...charged. McCarroll v. State, 294 Ala. 87, 312 So.2d 382 (1975); Brown v. State, 488 So.2d 16 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Jackson v. State, 384 So.2d 134 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), writ quashed, 384 So.2d 140 (Ala.1980). See also Annot., Availability in State Court of Defense of Entrapment When Accused D......
-
Wright v. State, 1 Div. 123
...a crime and merely furnished the opportunity for the commission thereof by the one who had the criminal intent.' " Jackson v. State, 384 So.2d 134, at 139 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), cert. quashed, 384 So.2d 140 (Ala.1980). Thus, the actions of the police must be more than merely providing the drugs......
-
Young v. State
...with the defense" is introduced. Further, "a plea of not guilty is not repugnant to the defense of entrapment." Jackson v. State, 384 So.2d 134 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), writ quashed, 384 So.2d 140 (Ala.1980); United States v. Groessel, 440 F.2d 602 (5th While there may not have been any special p......
-
Harris v. State
..."`Further, a plea of not guilty is not repugnant to the defense of entrapment.'" Young, 469 So.2d at 690 (quoting Jackson v. State, 384 So.2d 134 (Ala.Cr. App.1979)). Even if there is not a special plea entered by the defendant on entrapment, the defense may present other evidence of entrap......