State v. Duplain
| Decision Date | 29 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1721,1721 |
| Citation | 102 Ariz. 100,425 P.2d 570 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert DUPLAIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Vernon B. Croaff, Public Defender, Grant Laney, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
The defendant Duplain appeals from a conviction on two counts for the illegal possession and sale of marijuana. Defendant's principal defense was that of entrapment, alleging that the state's agents induced him to purchase the marijuana for resale, and thus the intent to commit the crime did not arise in the mind of the accused.
The police officer to whom defendant sold the marijuana testified that defendant first brought the subject to narcotics up, while the officer was a guest at defendant's house, and stated that he knew where he could get some if anyone had the money to buy it. The officer stated he did not previously indicate any interest in narcotics to the defendant. Duplain accepted money from the officer, and was unable to obtain any marijuana on that particular hight, but did obtain some several days later, and turned the narcotic over to the officer. Defendant claims that he did not initiate the conversation as to buying the drug, but rather one of his guests first mentioned it.
In order to effectively claim the defense of entrapment, there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of undue persuasion, or inducement to commit a crime that defendant would not have otherwise committed, not just the providing of the mere opportunity for the accused to commit the offense. State v. Rabon, 100 Ariz. 344, 414 P.2d 726 (1966); State v. Chavez, 98 Ariz. 236, 403 P.2d 545 (1965); State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28, 391 P.2d 586 (1964). As was stated in Hernandez:
'* * * a crucial element of the defense of entrapment is that the intent to commit the crime must not arise in the mind of the accused. * * * the defense of entrapment does not arise where one is ready to commit the offense given but the opportunity * * *.' 96 Ariz. 28, 31, 391 P.2d 586, 587.
In the present case, the record when viewed most favorably towards the defendant, discloses that only the opportunity to commit the crime was presented the accused, which he willingly seized. When the evidence is taken in a light most favorable to the state, it shows that the intent to commit the crime initiated in defendant's own mind....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gray
...committed, although providing the mere opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient.” Id. (citing State v. Duplain , 102 Ariz. 100, 101, 425 P.2d 570, 571 (1967) ).¶ 9 In 1983, we reaffirmed that a defendant, in order to invoke the entrapment defense, must admit the elements of the o......
-
State v. Fassler
...would not have otherwise wise committed, although providing the mere opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient, State v. Duplain, 102 Ariz. 100, 425 P.2d 570. The criminal conduct must be the product of the creative activity of (the) law enforcement officials. State v. Rabon, 100 ......
-
State v. Vitale
...would not have otherwise committed, although providing the mere opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient. State v. Duplain, 102 Ariz. 100, 425 P.2d 570. The criminal conduct must be the product of the creative activity of law enforcement officials, State v. Rabon, 100 Ariz. 344, ......
-
State v. Arce, 2190
...a particular sale there is but one transaction which permits but one conviction and sentence. State v. Price, supra; State v. Duplain, 102 Ariz. 100, 425 P.2d 570 (1967); State v. Vallejos, 89 Ariz. 76, 358 P.2d 178 (1960). We think the same reasoning applies where the substance possessed f......