State v. Grier

• Citation: 51 N.C.App. 209,275 S.E.2d 560
• Decision Date: 17 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 8019SC767,8019SC767
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Dorothy GRIER.
• Court: Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)

Page 560

275 S.E.2d 560

51 N.C.App. 209

STATE of North Carolina v. Dorothy GRIER.

No. 8019SC767.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 17, 1981.

Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Sandra M. King, Raleigh, for State.

Cecil R. Jenkins, Jr., Kannapolis, for defendant-appellant.

BECTON, Judge.

Defendant's fourth assignment of error, and the main focus of her appeal, is that the trial judge committed reversible error by not directing a verdict for defendant at the close of the evidence. The defendant argues that the evidence presented shows that agent Arnold's activities constituted entrapment as a matter of law and that Arnold induced her into criminal action at a time when she was in no way predisposed to criminality.

The defense of entrapment requires proof of two essential elements:

(1) acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or their agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime, (and)

(2) ... the criminal design originated in the minds of the government officials, rather than the innocent defendant, such that the crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement authorities.

State v. Walker, 295 N.C. 510, 513, 246 S.E.2d 748, 750 (1978); see also Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 369, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958). Like other defenses, entrapment is generally an issue for the jury to decide unless the court finds from the evidence presented that the police entrapped the defendant as a matter of law.

The leading North Carolina case on the subject of entrapment is State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 215 S.E.2d 589 (1975) in which the Supreme Court adopted the following standard:

The court can find entrapment as a matter of law only where the undisputed testimony and required inferences compel a finding that the defendant was lured by the officers into an action he was not predisposed to take. (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 32, 215 S.E.2d at 597, quoting State v. Campbell, 110 N.H. 238, 265 A.2d 11 (1970); see also Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932). It is clear from the record that the evidence presented concerning entrapment and the defendant's predisposition to criminal activity was in conflict.

The State's evidence tended to show that the defendant was actually the first one to raise the issue of a drug purchase; that she knew exactly where to go and who to see in order to make a drug purchase; and that other people who frequented her home looked upon Ms. Grier as one familiar with drug trafficking in Kannapolis.

Defendant's evidence tended to show that Arnold knew Ms. Grier was unemployed and in need of money; that he offered financial assistance to fix her car and leaky basement; and that he often brought beer food and cigarettes for her as gifts. Moreover, she testified that Arnold was the first one to raise the subject of a drug transaction; that he provided her with all the money for the drugs purchased; that he provided her with all the money for the drugs purchased; that he drover her on each of the three occasions in question to buy the drugs; and that she did not profit on any of the three purchases.

The evidence presented raises a classic conflict and illustrates that the defense of entrapment was very much in dispute. Since evidence of entrapment must be uncontradicted in order for the judge to take the issue from the jury, the trial judge acted properly in charging the jury on the defense and leaving it to their determination as an issue of fact.

Defendant also assigns as error the admission into evidence of a statement allegedly made by Leonard Parks which was testified to by agent Arnold. The record reveals the following from the examination of Arnold by the State:

Q. Now, going back to the conversation you had with Ms. Grier and Leonard Parks (or Leonard Durrand), before you went over to Yale and Princeton Street, what did Leonard Parks, (Leonard Durrand), say? What occurred in that conversation?

MR. JENKINS: Object.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

A. Mr. Parks said, "Dot, do you know where I can get some coke?"

MR. JENKINS: OBJECTION and MOVE TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: DENIED.

Defendant argues that the answer is excludable hearsay, and its admission violated her right to confrontation and cross examination. The statement reflected directly on the defendant's predisposition to sell cocaine, defendant contends, and its admission seriously undermined her defense of entrapment and constituted prejudicial error entitling her to a new trial. We disagree.

It is universally accepted that the testimony by a witness of what another person said is inadmissible hearsay if it is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter being asserted. State v. Griffis, 25 N.C. 504 (1843); 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence § 138 (2d ed. Brandis Revision 1973); Powers, The North Carolina Hearsay Rule and the Uniform Rules of Evidence, 34 N.C.L.Rev. 171, 178-80 (1956). A statement is not hearsay, however, if it is offered into evidence for some purpose other than to establish the truth of the statement itself. 1 Stansbury, supra, at ...