Murrell v. State, 65332
| Decision Date | 04 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 65332,65332 |
| Citation | 166 Ga.App. 526,304 S.E.2d 408 |
| Parties | MURRELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Elsie Higgs Griner, Galen P. Alderman, Nashville, for appellant.
Thomas H. Pittman, Dist. Atty., Robert C. Wilmot, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
This case involves three separate violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act () all allegedly made to the same undercover agent of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Defendant appeals, enumerating error in the denial of his motion for directed verdict with reference to one count of the marijuana sales and also that the court should have determined as a matter of law that he had been entrapped. Held:
1. We will consider the entrapment issue first. Clearly, the actions and conduct of the undercover agent did not amount to undue persuasion as defined in the case of Garrett v. State, 133 Ga.App. 564, 566(3), 211 S.E.2d 584. The evidence does not establish that the defendant was induced to commit the crime which he would not otherwise have committed by undue persuasion, incitement or deceitful means, the phrase "undue persuasion" being something more than repeated requests for contraband goods. Here the agent merely made a number of requests for marijuana before the defendant sold the first marijuana to him. Thereafter, the agent requested defendant to supply him further with marijuana. Clearly, the defendant was ready and willing to sell the drugs in this instance. The evidence does not establish, as a matter of law, that the agent improperly induced the defendant to sell him marijuana on the three occasions in question. See Allen v. State, 120 Ga.App. 533, 535(4), 171 S.E.2d 380. Compare Johnson v. State, 147 Ga.App. 92, 93(1), 248 S.E.2d 168. The agent merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the crimes charged. See Hill v. State, 225 Ga. 117, 166 S.E.2d 338. There is no merit in this complaint.
2. The basis for defendant's claim that a directed verdict of acquittal on Count 1 should have been granted is based on the agent's inability to positively and conclusively identify the bags he received from the defendant. Nevertheless, the officer testified positively to the purchase of the marijuana from the defendant and there is no merit in this complaint in failing to identify with absolute certainty the identity of the material (the brown paper bag and the clear plastic bag containing the marijuana) as being the same ones the agent received from the defendant. These items were in the same "Zip-Lock" bag with the evidence tag identifying the defendant as the source thereby establishing reasonable assurance they were in fact the same....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hernandez
...reluctant to sell to the informant. Undue persuasion means more than "repeated requests for contraband goods." Murrell v. State, 166 Ga.App. 526, 304 S.E.2d 408, 408 (1983). Considering all of the undisputed facts describing the circumstances surrounding the sales, the informant's several a......
-
In re Hernandez
... ... 1. Petitioner appeals a civil division order granting the ... State summary judgment in response to her petition for ... post-conviction relief (PCR), which ... persuasion means more than "repeated requests for ... contraband goods." Murrell v. State , 304 S.E.2d ... 408, 408 (Ga.Ct.App. 1983). Considering all of the undisputed ... ...
-
Pennyman v. State, s. 70188
...out an entrapment situation as a matter of law." Paras v. State, 247 Ga. 75, 77 (2), 274 S.E.2d 451 (1981). See Murrell v. State, 166 Ga.App. 526 (1), 304 S.E.2d 408 (1983). Here the state's evidence shows that defendant was merely provided an opportunity to commit the The jury is the arbit......
- Hunt v. State, 66198