People v. Ramon
Decision Date | 09 August 1978 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 31456 |
Citation | 272 N.W.2d 124,86 Mich.App. 113 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rojelio RAMON, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender by F. Martin Tieber, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James D. Norlander, Pros. Atty., Theodore P. Hentchel, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., P. J., and T. M. BURNS and VanVALKENBURG, * JJ.
Following a bench trial on July 13 and 14, 1976, defendant was found guilty of delivery of heroin in violation of M.C.L. §§ 335.314(b), 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. §§ 18.1070(14)(b), 18.1070(41)(1)(a). He was sentenced to three years probation with six months to be spent in the county jail. He appeals as of right.
According to the testimony, one Eric Colby, a cousin of defendant, working in conjunction with David Brewer, an undercover officer and deputy sheriff, began calling on defendant in January of 1975. Colby told defendant he had been arrested on a breaking and entering charge in another county and needed funds to engage an attorney. He also stated that certain blacks, who had purchased dope before, had been to his house and had demanded more. After being assured that Colby did not intend to use the heroin himself, defendant delivered a tinfoil packet to him containing 1/3 gram of a brown powdery substance which contained 10% Heroin.
Three questions are raised on appeal; however, since the entrapment issue will be dispositive, it is the only issue discussed here.
It is now well established in Michigan by the holding of the Supreme Court in People v. Turner, 390 Mich. 7, 19-21, 210 N.W.2d 336 (1973), that the so-called objective test is to be applied to the facts of a case in order to determine if in reality entrapment has ensued.
The situation presented in the case at bar is remarkably similar to the one in People v. Cushman, 65 Mich.App. 161, 237 N.W.2d 228 (1975), except that the cousin there played on the sympathies of the defendant by saying that his brother-in-law had a friend who was sick and needed some dope.
A majority of the panel in Cushman, after a reference to Turner, stated:
"The court's attention should be focused on the conduct of the police and whether that conduct has in a reprehensible manner instigated the commission of a crime by one not ready and willing to commit it regardless of the propensities of the particular person induced." People v. Cushman, supra at 164, 166, 237 N.W.2d at 230, 231.
In People v. Fraker, 63 Mich.App. 29, 33, 233 N.W.2d 878, 881 (1975), we find the following statement:
"If the police conduct was sufficiently provocative to induce the normal law abiding citizen to commit a crime, entrapment has occurred regardless of the predisposition of the defendant involved."
See also People v. D'Angelo, 401 Mich. 167, 173, 257 N.W.2d 655 (1977); People v. Duis, 81 Mich.App. 698, 265 N.W.2d 794 (1978); People v. Stanley, 68 Mich.App. 559, 243 N.W.2d 684 (1976); People v. Asher, 67 Mich.App. 174, 240 N.W.2d 749 (1976); People v. Van Riper, 65 Mich.App. 230, 237 N.W.2d 262 (1975).
Application of the objective test, promulgated in the foregoing citations, to the facts in this case leads us to the conclusion that defendant was entrapped contrary to the finding of the trial court. Ramon was reluctant to make the sale and did so only after being convinced by Colby that he needed money and would not use the drug himself.
Plaintiff relies heavily on People v. Perry, 75 Mich.App. 121, 126, 254 N.W.2d 810, 812 (1977). However, in that decision one judge disagreed in a strong dissent and the majority opinion contains two sentences which distinguish it from the present situation:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Soto v. State
...before us concerning the defense of entrapment and inducements based on close personal or familial friendships. In People v. Ramon, 86 Mich.App. 113, 272 N.W.2d 124 (1978), the appellate court determined, contrary to the ruling of the trial court, that the defendant was entrapped after the ......
-
McCoy v. Com.
...that in both cases the question of entrapment was submitted to the trier of fact. The case before us is more akin to People v. Ramon, 86 Mich.App. 113, 272 N.W.2d 124 (1978). There, the defendant purchased narcotics and delivered them to a police informant for sale after the police informan......
-
State v. Overby, Cr. N
...son's death, obtained valium for informant out of sympathy in informant's attempt to cope with son's death]; People v. Ramon, 86 Mich.App. 113, 272 N.W.2d 124 (1978) [informant was defendant's cousin]; People v. Soper, 57 Mich.App. 677, 226 N.W.2d 691 (1975) [informant was a childhood frien......
-
People v. Moore
...While this Court possesses the authority to decide the entrapment issue as a matter of law, we decline to do so. People v. Ramon, 86 Mich.App. 113, 117, 272 N.W.2d 124 (1978). On remand, the magistrate is instructed to bind defendants over for trial. Defendants may then raise the issue of e......