State v. Arnold, 13007

Decision Date09 August 1984
Docket NumberNo. 13007,13007
Citation676 S.W.2d 61
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David Leon ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Dan Crawford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Ralph Weatherwax, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

TITUS, Judge.

Defendant was charged with violating § 195.020 1 by selling marijuana [spelled "marihuana" in § 195.010(22) ], a Schedule I controlled substance, to Springfield Police Officer Clark on June 26, 1981. With assent of the court, defendant waived a trial by jury. Rule 27.01(b). Following trial wherein defendant offered no evidence, the court declared defendant guilty as charged. After defendant's post-trial motion was overruled, the court entered its judgment and sentenced defendant to imprisonment for a term of 10 years. § 195.200.1(4). Defendant appealed.

On June 26, 1981, Officer Clark was working with the special investigation unit of the Springfield Police Department and going by the alias "T.J." He worked in conjunction with a female informant, Jackie White, who posed as T.J.'s girl friend. Mrs. White's husband was then in prison and she acted as an informant under some undisclosed "prosecution arrangement" which had nothing to do with drug charges. Inter alia, Mrs. White's duties were to become acquainted with suspected drug dealers and introduce them to Clark so that he could get his "name spread around town" to enable him "to purchase drugs from anyone that had them."

Prior to June 26, 1981, and after having been introduced to defendant by Mrs. White, Officer Clark had a couple of contacts with defendant at the latter's place of employment regarding matters unassociated with illicit drugs. On the above specified date, Clark met briefly with defendant and they agreed to re-meet at defendant's place of employment "at approximately five o'clock." At this latter meeting, which lasted 15 or 20 minutes, Clark asked defendant "if he had any pot for sale" to which defendant replied he did not have any with him but that he could get some at "Sandy's house" which he would sell to Clark for $60. Near 6:45 p.m. on June 26, 1981, Clark, accompanied by Mrs. White, went to defendant's home and not finding him present drove away only to be overtaken and stopped by defendant. When defendant got into the back seat of Clark's vehicle, defendant, in exchange for $60 given him by Clark, gave Clark a plastic bag of purported marijuana which he first weighed on his portable scale to display that the package did indeed weigh one ounce. Ere parting, defendant told Clark that if he "didn't like it to get in touch with him and he'd give me my money back." Subsequent testing concerning the contents of the package by a qualified technician disclosed it was, in fact, marijuana.

In substance, defendant's initial point relied on is that his commission of the act charged was not criminal because he engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was entrapped by a law enforcement officer (Clark) or a person acting in cooperation with such officer (Jackie White). Our statute, § 562.066.2, provides: "An 'entrapment' is perpetrated if a law enforcement officer or a person acting in cooperation with such an officer, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, solicits, encourages or otherwise induces another person to engage in conduct when he was not ready and willing to engage in such conduct." In other words, when the criminal intent originates with the officer and the defendant is lured or induced into the commission of a crime he was not ready and willing to engage in, then, as a general rule an entrapment has occurred and no conviction may be had. On the other hand, if the criminal intent originates in the mind of the defendant, it is no defense to the charge that an opportunity is furnished or that an officer aids in the commission of the crime. State v. Ritterbach, 627 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Mo.App.1982); Wilson v. State, 606 S.W.2d 266, 267 (Mo.App.1980). The fact that an officer merely afforded an opportunity or facilities for the commission of an offense does not constitute entrapment for entrapment takes place only when the criminal conduct was the product of the criminal activity of the officer. "To determine whether entrapment has been established, a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal." Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 821[4-6], 2 L.Ed.2d 848, 851 (1958); Roth v. United States, 270 F.2d 655, 659 (8th Cir.1959), cert. denied 361 U.S. 931, 80 S.Ct. 368, 4 L.Ed.2d 352 (1960).

As seen from the resume of Officer Clark's testimony, supra, his two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Funkhouser v. State, 16120
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 1989
    ...is no defense to the charge that an opportunity is furnished or that an officer aids in the commission of the crime. State v. Arnold, 676 S.W.2d 61, 62-63 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Ritterbach, 627 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Mo.App.1982); Wilson v. State, 606 S.W.2d 266, 267 (Mo.App.1980). So, it has be......
  • State v. R-- D-- G--
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1987
    ...of error directed to that testimony. This point is therefore subject to review only as plain error. Rule 29.11(e)(2)(B); State v. Arnold, 676 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Mo.App.1984). "Plain error" has been defined as that order of error which "impact[s] so substantially upon the rights of the defendant......
  • State v. Bolen
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 1987
    ...strong showing that the alleged error affected substantial trial rights and amounted to manifest injustice. Rule 30.20; State v. Arnold, 676 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Mo.App.1984). Evidence of reputation "as to those traits of character which ordinarily would be involved in the commission of an offens......
  • State v. Jones, 52207
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1987
    ...the plain error doctrine defendant must make a strong showing that the trial court error resulted in manifest injustice. State v. Arnold, 676 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Mo.App.1984). The appellant bears the burden of showing manifest injustice. See, State v. Robinson, 680 S.W.2d 292, 293-294 For severa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT