Merritt v. State, Nos. 40744-40746
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | HALL; NICHOLS, P. J., and RUSSELL |
| Citation | 137 S.E.2d 917,110 Ga.App. 150 |
| Parties | J. Wesley MARRITT v. The STATE (three cases) |
| Docket Number | Nos. 40744-40746,No. 2 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1964 |
Page 917
v.
The STATE (three cases).
Rehearing Denied July 10, 29, 1964.
Syllabus by the Court
The defense of entrapment is not successful when the conduct of investigating officers toward the accused would not likely have enticed into crime an unwary innocent who would otherwise have struggled with himself and resisted ordinary temptations, but would be likely to induce only those ready and willing to commit a crime.
[110 Ga.App. 151] The defendant was tried on three indictments for separate offenses of illegal sales and possession of nontax-paid liquor. The jury found a verdict of guilty on each indictment, and the defendant assigns error on the overruling of his amended motion for new trial.
Stow & Andrews, Robert E. Andrews, Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
Jeff C. Wayne, Sol. Gen., Frank Strickland, Jr., Gainesville, for defendant in error.
HALL, Judge.
There was evidence that in October and November 1963 the Georgia Revenue Department
Page 918
was conducting an investigation of the illegal sale and possession of whiskey in the area of Gainesville and the officer in charge of the investigation had received several reports and complaints of violations existing at the Holiday Motel. Revenue Agent Garrett was sent to Gainesville and checked in at the Holiday Motel for the specific purpose of getting someone there to sell him some whiskey. At that time he did not know the defendant and did not know who was the bell boy at the motel. The defendant accompanied Agent Garrett to his room assisting with his luggage. Agent Garrett testified that when they reached the room he asked the defendant if he could get him some whiskey; the defendant replied that he could get some at a price of $5.00, but he would have to go to the club after it. The agent gave the defendant the price and a $1.00 tip and the defendant went out and returned in about ten minutes with a bottle of whiskey. Officer Garrett checked in at the motel on two subsequent occasions and after some conversation with the defendant purchased whiskey in similar transactions, and gave the defendant 50 cents or 75 cents as a tip. On the second occasion other officers had the motel under surveillance and they did not see the defendant leave the premises between the time he left Agent Garrett's room and the time he returned there with the whiskey.The defendant contends that the verdicts were not authorized because the evidence proved his defense of entrapment as a matter of law. The Georgia cases are in accord with the general view that the defense of entrapment is not successful when the conduct of the investigating officers toward the accused would not likely have 'enticed into crime an unwary innocent who would otherwise have struggled within himself and resisted [110 Ga.App. 152] ordinary temptations,' but would be likely to induce only those ready and willing to commit a crime. Accardi v. United States, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradham v. State, No. 56504
...Malcolm T. Gilliland, Inc., 5 Cir., 471 F.2d 894. See Womack v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 131 Ga.App. 63, 205 S.E.2d 72; Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917. Appellant at the conclusion of the charge refused to specify any part of the charge that was deemed to be inaccurate ......
-
Lush v. State, Nos. 66574
...as to the applicability of the charge to either defendant. Accordingly, we find no error in the charge of the court. Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917. See Todd v. Fellows, 107 Ga.App. 783(4), 131 S.E.2d 8. We find no merit in the assertion that the trial court denied a......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Grover, No. 43861
...Homasote Co. v. Stanley, 104 Ga.App. 636, 639, 122 S.E.2d 523; Flanigan v. Reville, 107 Ga.App. 382, 130 S.E.2d 258; Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917; Garner v. Sharp, 111 Ga.App. 47, 48, 140 S.E.2d Judgment affirmed. BELL, P.J., and QUILLIAN, J., concur. ...
-
Rowles v. State, No. 54276
...that is sufficiently clear to be understood by jurors of ordinary capacity and understanding is all that is required. Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917 (1964). Even though not every phrase and portion of the Code section be applicable, it is generally held that a new tr......
-
Bradham v. State, 56504
...Malcolm T. Gilliland, Inc., 5 Cir., 471 F.2d 894. See Womack v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 131 Ga.App. 63, 205 S.E.2d 72; Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917. Appellant at the conclusion of the charge refused to specify any part of the charge that was deemed to be inaccurate ......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Grover, 43861
...Homasote Co. v. Stanley, 104 Ga.App. 636, 639, 122 S.E.2d 523; Flanigan v. Reville, 107 Ga.App. 382, 130 S.E.2d 258; Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917; Garner v. Sharp, 111 Ga.App. 47, 48, 140 S.E.2d Judgment affirmed. BELL, P.J., and QUILLIAN, J., concur. ...
-
Rowles v. State, 54276
...that is sufficiently clear to be understood by jurors of ordinary capacity and understanding is all that is required. Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917 (1964). Even though not every phrase and portion of the Code section be applicable, it is generally held that a new tr......
-
Milstead v. State, 59747
...charge on identification was this single exhumed portion prejudicial as amounting to a comment on the evidence. See Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 153, 137 S.E.2d 917. Rather we conclude that the comment was the recognition of a proper statement of law and did no more than state a self-......