McGowan v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 28S05-9612-CR-762,28S05-9612-CR-762 |
| Citation | 674 N.E.2d 174 |
| Parties | Richard McGOWAN, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
The defendant Richard McGowan was convicted of dealing in cocaine, a Class A felony. In affirming the conviction, the Court of Appeals noted apparent inconsistencies among prior decisions of this Court regarding the defense of entrapment. McGowan v. State, 671 N.E.2d 872, 880, (Ind.Ct.App.1996). To resolve this issue, we grant transfer and adopt the position taken herein by the Court of Appeals.
The defense of entrapment is provided by statute as follows:
(a) It is a defense that:
(1) The prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in a conduct; and
(2) The person was not predisposed to commit the offense.
(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment.
The Court of Appeals correctly noted that several cases from this Court "seem to stand for the proposition that the State must disprove both elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt to deny the defendant the benefit of the defense." McGowan, 671 N.E.2d at 880 (citing Smith v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1059, 1063 (Ind.1991); Gossmeyer v. State, 482 N.E.2d 239, 241 (Ind.1985); Baird v. State, 446 N.E.2d 342, 344 (Ind.1983)). The defendant's conviction in Baird was reversed due to the failure of the State to prove predisposition, and we stated:
It is clear that in order to rebut the defense of entrapment the state must show two things; i.e., first, that the level of police activity was not such that it would persuasively affect the free will of the accused, and second, that the accused was predisposed to commit the offense. Part (b) of the statute is explanatory of the level of police activity that would be necessary to support the entrapment defense but this section does not negate the requirement of the necessary predisposition on the part of the accused. We have consistently held that if the accused had the predisposition to commit the crime and the police merely afforded him an opportunity to do so, then the defense of entrapment is not available.
However, as also correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, in several cases, we have held that the defense of entrapment may be rebutted by demonstrating the nonexistence of only one of these two elements. McGowan, 671 N.E.2d at 880 (citing Mack v. State, 457 N.E.2d 200, 202-03 (Ind.1983); Watkins v. State, 436 N.E.2d 83, 84 (Ind.1982); Ryan v. State, 431 N.E.2d 115, 117 (Ind.1982)). This Court, in Ryan, stated:
When the defense of entrapment has been raised, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's conduct was not a product of the efforts of a law enforcement officer or that the accused was predisposed to engage in the conduct.
Ryan, 431 N.E.2d at 117 (emphasis in original). Recently, when this court reviewed the entrapment defense generally, we observed:
Once a defendant has both indicated his intent to rely on the defense of entrapment and has established police inducement, the burden shifts to the State to show the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime.... The standard by which the State must prove the defendant's predisposition is beyond a reasonable doubt.... If the defendant shows police inducement and the State fails to show predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime charged, entrapment is established as a matter of law.
Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 577 (Ind.1994).
In the present case, the jury was instructed that, in order to overcome the entrapment defense, the State must prove beyond...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belvedere v. State
..."Upon granting the petition to transfer, the decision of the Court of Appeals is deemed vacated and held for naught." McGowan v. State, 674 N.E.2d 174, 175 (Ind.1996). However, our Supreme Court has not yet issued an opinion in either of those cases. As such, our discussion of Bowles and Me......
-
Sickels v. State , 20A03–1102–CR–66.
...issued an opinion in that case. We emphasize that a vacated case is not precedent and we do not regard it as such. See McGowan v. State, 674 N.E.2d 174, 175 (Ind.1996) (“Upon granting the petition to transfer, the decision of the Court of Appeals is deemed vacated and held for naught.”). Ra......
-
Taylor v. State Of Ind.
...danger to those on the arrest scene.’ ” (quoting Buie, 494 U.S. at 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093)), overruled on other grounds by McGowan v. State, 674 N.E.2d 174, 175 (Ind.1996). The shotgun was thus found in plain view during a valid protective sweep and was therefore admissible. Taylor has failed ......
-
Albaugh v. State
...both elements (a)(1) and (a)(2) beyond a reasonable doubt,5 or disprove only one of the two elements.6 Finally, in McGowan v. State, 674 N.E.2d 174 (Ind.1996), reh'g denied, we recognized this inconsistency and adopted the latter approach: the State may prove either that the "defendant's pr......