McCarroll v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1975 |
| Citation | 294 Ala. 87,312 So.2d 382 |
| Parties | Granville Madison McCARROLL v. STATE of Alabama. SC 1155. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Melvin W. Brunson, Mobile, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Brent Thornley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Granville Madison McCarroll was convicted in the Circuit Court of Mobile County of selling heroin. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in the penitentiary. He filed an appeal In forma pauperis with the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. On February 26, 1975, the case was transferred to this court.
On April 19, 1974, a State agent was introduced to McCarroll by King John Stanley, an alleged police informer. After the introduction Stanley left. McCarroll entered the agent's automobile where McCarroll showed the agent a match box containing three capsules--one empty and one containing a substance identified by the State toxicologist as heroin. McCarroll offered to sell the agent 9 capsules for $100. The agent paid McCarroll $100 and took possession of the two capsules. McCarroll said he would supply the remaining 7 capsules at the Mardi Gras Lounge and left with the money paid by the agent. McCarroll never rendezvoused with the agent at the Mardi Gras Lounge.
McCarroll pleaded not guilty and relied on the defense of entrapment. He denied selling heroin to the agent but admitted selling capsules which he said contained nothing more than whole wheat flour. He offered no proof that the capsules contained whose wheat flour, and the toxicologist testified that he found no evidence of whose wheat flour in his examination of them.
During the trial the court sustained objections to efforts by McCarroll to ascertain that King John Stanley was a police informer.
At the conclusion of the trial the court denied a request by McCarroll to charge the jury on entrapment in his oral charge to them. He filed no such written requested charge.
The questions raised on appeal are whether entrapment was a defense whether the trial judge erred in sustaining objections to questions by McCarroll seeking to ascertain that Stanley was an agent of the Mobile Police Department; and, whether the court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the law of entrapment.
The defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who denies that he committed the offense charged. Rodriquez v. United States, 227 F.2d 912 (1955, CA 5th Cir., Texas). The defense rests on the defendant's admitting the deed but disclaiming the thought. Lindsay v. State, 41 Ala.App. 85, 125 So.2d 716 (1960).
Here McCarroll denied he sold heroin, the offense with which he was charged, to the State agent. He admitted he sold capsules to the agent, which he contends contained whole wheat flour. While we have not been cited a case involving a similar factual situation decided by this court, we find that in State v. Varnon, 174 S.W.2d 146 (1943, Mo.) the defendant admitted selling 'Coke' when the State asserted he sold whiskey without a license, to a decoy. The defendant denied making any illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. Admitting selling 'Coke' while charged with selling whiskey illegally was not consistent with the defense of entrapment declared the court. This doctrine was affirmed in State v. Egan, 272 S.W.2d 719 (1954, Mo.). In Egan the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Tracey
...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, ......
-
Lambeth v. State
...addition, the defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who denies that he committed the offense 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, 3......
-
Messelt v. State
...charged. This principle is now well established in Alabama. Owens v. State, 291 Ala. 107, 278 So.2d 693 (1975); McCarroll v. State, 294 Ala. 87, 312 So.2d 382 (1975). We turn to the question whether defendant denied that he committed the offense charged. As stated in McCarroll "The defense ......
-
Neely v. State
...to withhold the identity of the informant. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); McCarroll v. State, 294 Ala. 87, 312 So.2d 382 (1975); Stanford v. State, 448 So.2d 472 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Thornton v. State, 390 So.2d 1093 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex ......