Reed v. State

• Decision Date: 28 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 48804,48804,1
• Citation: 204 S.E.2d 335,130 Ga.App. 659
• Parties: Reginald S. REED v. The STATE
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 335

204 S.E.2d 335

130 Ga.App. 659

Reginald S. REED v. The STATE.

No. 48804.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Jan. 28, 1974.

Sexton & Skidmore, Timothy N. Skidmore, Gerald L. Talansky, Atlanta, for appellant.

William H. Ison, Dist, Atty., J. W. Bradley, Jonesboro, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

CLARK, Judge.

Among various enumerations of error the principal question for decision presents a first impression case: When the evidence in a criminal case warranted a charge on the law of entrapment, was the trial judge correct in failing to charge in conjunction with its instruction of the law on that subject that the prosecution must carry the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such entrapment did not exist?

This appeal is by a defendant found guilty of violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act. At the trial defendant admitted that a sale of marijuana took place but argued defendant to have been entrapped. The trial court instructed the jury as to the law on entrapment but omitted stating whether the defendant on the state had the burden of proof on the entrapment issue. Defense counsel then objected to the charge contending the jury should be instructed that the state had to prove that entrapment did not exist. Such objection was overruled. This was claimed to be error in defendant's amendment to a motion for new trial which also contained other alleged errors. This appeal is from the overruling of the new trial motion.

1. The trial court instructed the jury thusly as to the law of entrapment: '. . . I charge you that a person is not guilty of a crime if by entrapment his conduct is induced or solicited by a government officer or employee or agent of either for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used in prosecuting the person for the commission of a crime. Entrapment exists where the idea and intention of the commission of the crime originated from the Government officer or employee or agent of either and he, by undue persuasion, incitement of deceitful mean (sic) induced the accused to commit the act which the accused would not have committed except for the conduct of such officer.' The court then charged: 'Now Lady and Gentlemen of the Jury, if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that this Defendant on or about the date alleged in the bill of indictment or within four years prior to the dating, finding and returning of this bill of indictment into Court did commit the offense of violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act as alleged in the bill of indictment and as defined to you by the Court, then you would be authorized to find this Defendant guilty as charged. On the other hand, if you do not believe that he is guilty or if you have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, then it would be your duty to give the Defendant the benefit of the doubt and to acquit him.' (T. 82, 83).

It will be observed that the trial court's instruction satisfied substantially the provisions concerning entrapment as appears in Code Ann § 26-905. While our appellate courts have passed upon various aspects of the entrapment defense we have not heretofore been confronted with the issue of allocation of the burden of proof in such a case. See McKibben v. State, 115 Ga.App. 598, 599, 155 S.E.2d 449 where a number of entrapment decisions are cited. Therefore, we have sought our answer through a study of the Federal decisions which have considered this question. We have concluded from the logic and reasoning of these federal opinions that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury as counsel urged.

Two federal cases are similar to the case at bar in that the trial court made no attempt to allocate the burden of proof on the issue of entrapment. In United States v. Landry, 257 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1958) it was ruled that where the district court failed to instruct the jury as to the burden of proof on entrapment, the defendant was prejudiced and a new trial should be granted. '(W)here the record presents a close question on the issue of entrapment, we think the jury should have been instructed that the burden was upon the government to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped into committing the acts alleged which, absent entrapment, constituted the offenses.' Id., p. 430. In Pratti v. United States, 389 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1968) the ninth circuit also held that the court's failure to specifically charge on the burden of proof as to entrapment was reversible error.

Furthermore, in two recent decisions the Fifth Circuit voiced approval of a charge placing upon the government the burden of disproving entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Groessel, 440 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1971) and United States v. Banks, 475 F.2d 1367 (5th Cir. 1973).

Of the federal decisions which have dealt with the question presented herein Notaro v. United States, 363 F.2d 169 (9th Cir. 1966) has been most persuasive. In this opinion the court examined the impact of an emtrapment charge upon the lay minds of the jury. In Notaro the ninth circuit dealt with a charge which attempted to instruct the jury on the entrapment-burden issue. The first portion of this charge conveyed to the jury that the defendant would not be entitled to an acquittal if it should find that he was ready and willing to commit the offense when and if the opportunity was offered; and that the government did no more than to offer that opportunity. This portion was recognized as proper. However, the very next paragraph was ruled to have improperly laid the burden of proof on the defendant. The district court 'pointed directly to the elements of the defense itself, emphasizing that if the appellant 'had no previous intent or purpose to commit any offense of the character here charged, and did so only because he was induced or persuaded by some agent of the Government,' then he was entitled to acquittal.' Id., p. 175. Such a charge, the appellate court held, would probably serve to confuse the jury. '(A)bsent enlightment as to the burden of proof, (it) could . . . have created the impression in lay minds that the appellant carried the burden as to the positive elements of his defense.' Id., p. 176.

In the case sub judice, the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the substantive law of entrapment. On the heels of this instruction, however, the court charged the jury as to the burden of proof generally in a criminal prosecution: 'if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant . . . did commit the offense of violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Act . . . then you would be authorized to find this defendant guilty as charged.' This charge is both insufficient and prejudicial to the defendant for while it may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant as blatantly as the charge given in Notaro it is equally capable of confusing the jury.

The defendant who interposes an entrapment defense may not controvert the allegations of the indictment. McKibben v. State, 115 Ga.App. 598, 600, 155 S.E.2d 449. In order to raise the question of his predisposition to commit the crime, therefore, the defendant does not take issue with the state's assertion that he did commit the alleged acts. To a lay jury, unfamiliar with all the elements of a particular crime, the defendant's conviction is authorized because he 'did commit the offense of violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Act.' Thus a separate instruction on the burden of proof on the entrapment issue is necessary for the jury to be properly informed as to the...