Robinson v. State, 55076
| Decision Date | 03 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 55076,55076,1 |
| Citation | 243 S.E.2d 257,145 Ga.App. 17 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Thomas ROBINSON v. The STATE |
Powell & Snelling, Richard L. Powell, Augusta, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., Gayle B. Hamrick, Asst. Dist. Atty., Augusta, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of unlawfully selling heroin in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. This appeal follows.
1. At the close of all the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the basis that the state failed to carry its burden to rebut his prima facie showing of entrapment. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment.
Appellant testified that he was induced to arrange the sale of the contraband involved herein by persistent solicitations and undue persuasion of a police informant. According to his testimony, these solicitations were flatly refused at first, but, after repeated requests on several different occasions on different days, appellant was eventually persuaded to act as a conduit for "friends" of the informant (police officers), i. e., to arrange for a purchase of heroin by acting as an intermediary between the police officers and a supplier. Appellant denied having used heroin prior to his arrest or having been a dealer. There was no evidence that the accused had been regularly engaged in the illegal sale of heroin.
The state made no attempt to rebut appellant's testimony. Although the two arresting officers (i. e., the informant's "friends") testified at trial, neither officer was familiar with the methods employed by the informant. The informant did not testify.
Defendant's testimony was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of entrapment. See Tolbert v. State, 138 Ga.App. 724, 227 S.E.2d 416. The record is absolutely devoid of evidence that, prior to his arrest, appellant had a marked disposition to use and sell heroin, that appellant knowingly owned and possessed heroin prior to his admitted act of obtaining the drug in the instant case, or that the circumstances surrounding the solicitations by the police informant occurred in a way other than that testified to by appellant. See, e. g., Garrett v. State, 133 Ga.App. 564, 566, 211 S.E.2d 584. (No entrapment raised where defendant's testimony revealed "a marked disposition to use and sell" contraband.) Brooks v. State, 125 Ga.App. 867, 189 S.E.2d 448. (No entrapment raised where accused, after demurring "somewhat," arranged for and participated in the purchase of contraband; no evidence of repeated solicitations and refusals on various occasions.) Tischmak v. State, 133 Ga.App. 534, 539, 211 S.E.2d 587 (Webb, J., concurring). (No entrapment raised in spite of repeated solicitations where accused "knowingly owned and possessed" contraband; Tolbert, supra, where defendant knowingly owned and possessed the contraband is apparently in disagreement.)
The testimony of the arresting officers was not sufficient to rebut defendant's prima facie defense of entrapment. See, e. g., McHugh v. State, 134 Ga.App. 758, 216 S.E.2d 351. (Testimony of arresting officer sufficient by itself to sustain conviction in spite of entrapment raised by defendant; accused's offer to officer to "come back if (he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. State
...State, 141 Ga.App. 424, 233 S.E.2d 500 (1977); Sprague v. State, 147 Ga.App. 347(1), 248 S.E.2d 711 (1978). Compare Robinson v. State, 145 Ga.App. 17, 243 S.E.2d 257 (1978) where the alleged undue influence occurred out of the presence of the state's witness and where the informant did not ......
-
Chambers v. State
...Kacon, inasmuch as neither Capaldi nor Kacon were called as witnesses by the state, the convictions cannot stand. See Robinson v. State, 145 Ga.App. 17, 243 S.E.2d 257. As we construe appellants' arguments, the elements of coercion and entrapment are intertwined. That is, the coercion cause......
-
Haralson v. State, A96A1164
...143 Ga.App. 227, 228(1), 237 S.E.2d 705 (1977). See also Hill v. State, 261 Ga. at 378, 405 S.E.2d 258 (1991); Robinson v. State, 145 Ga.App. 17, 243 S.E.2d 257 (1978). Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the majority would affirm defendant's conviction because of evidence it says shows......
-
Bennett v. State
...who had multiple sources of supply." Taylor v. State, 149 Ga.App. 362, 363, 254 S.E.2d 432 (1979). Compare, e. g., Robinson v. State, 145 Ga.App. 17, 243 S.E.2d 257 (1978). "(W)here the state produces rebuttal to the testimony of the appellant, it is not essential for the informer to testif......