Price v. United States, 4677.
| Citation | 56 F.2d 135 |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 4677.,4677. |
| Parties | PRICE et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Alfred E. Roth, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
George E. Q. Johnson, U. S. Atty., and Mary D. Bailey, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Chicago, Ill.
Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BALTZELL, District Judge.
Appellants were charged by an indictment in two counts, first with the unlawful sale of narcotics, and second with facilitating the transportation and concealment of narcotics after importation. There was a trial which resulted in the conviction and sentence of each appellant, trial by jury having been waived.
Appellant Price was part owner and night operator of a restaurant at 4407 Broadway, Chicago, Ill., on the 21st day of February, 1931, and had been for a considerable length of time prior thereto. On that date, Carson, a government agent, accompanied by one William Rose, visited this restaurant. Price had many years' experience, prior to his entry into the restaurant business, in the operation of saloons in various locations in the city of Chicago. During that time he had become acquainted with Rose and knew, at the time he and the narcotic agent visited his restaurant, that Rose was a drug addict and had been for many years. During their visit to the restaurant, Rose engaged Price in private conversation, saying that he was ill. Whereupon, Price informed him that he could get him anything he wanted. Rose asked him to get some morphine. An arrangement was made by Price whereby Rose was to return later in the evening, at which time Price would have the morphine for him. Rose returned to the restaurant about 11:30 o'clock that night and was informed by Price that the party had not yet arrived and that he would have to wait a few minutes. While Price and Rose were standing near the door of the restaurant talking, an automobile drove up and appellant Baltman got out and entered the restaurant, handing a package to Price containing an ounce of morphine. Rose then accompanied Price into the kitchen of the restaurant, where Price delivered to him the morphine which he had received from Baltman, collecting from Rose the sum of $75 therefor.
Appellants contend that they were not engaged in the unlawful traffic in narcotics; that they knew nothing about such traffic; that, in fact, they had never before handled morphine; and that they had procured it for Rose simply because of his illness and their belief that he needed it. They rely upon the defense of entrapment for a reversal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fine
...U.S. 369, 373, 78 S.Ct. 819; friendship; Sorrells v. United States, supra, 287 U.S. 435, 439, 53 S.Ct. 210; Sickness; Price v. United States, 56 F.2d 135, 136 (7th Cir.); offers of money; United States v. Lynch, 256 F. 983, 984 (S.D.N.Y.); or repeated or persistent solicitation. State v. Ma......
-
United States v. Spadafora
...or detectives by the government is necessary to prove entrapment. Goldstein v. United States, 7 Cir., 256 F. 813; Price et al. v. United States, 7 Cir., 56 F.2d 135. Where government agents merely offer the opportunity for the commission of a crime to one who already has the criminal intent......
-
United States v. Carter
...conduct does not constitute entrapment as a matter of law. United States v. Stocker, 7 Cir., 273 F.2d 754, 756. See also Price v. United States, 7 Cir., 56 F.2d 135, 136 and the general principles of the law on entrapment expressed in the cases collected in United States v. Perkins, 7 Cir.,......
-
United States v. Perkins
...out of the operation of the general principle of entrapment as has been declared by this and other courts. * * *" In Price v. United States, 7 Cir., 56 F.2d 135, 136, we said: "It is apparent that appellants were ready and willing to commit the offense charged, and that they were not induce......