State v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 14 May 1975 |
| Citation | 21 Or.App. 630,535 P.2d 779 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Alma MURPHY, Appellant. . Submitted on Record and Appellant's Brief |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and John K. Hoover, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, for appellant.
No appearance by respondent.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FOLEY, JJ.
Defendant appeals from her conviction of criminal activity in drugs (furnishing marihuana), ORS 167.207, asserting that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, which was based on the defense of entrapment. Entrapment is a 'defense,' as opposed to an 'affirmative defense,' ORS 161.275, and if sufficiently raised must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. ORS 161.055. State v. Davis, 14 Or.App. 422, 428--29, 512 P.2d 1366, Sup.Ct. review denied (1973).
The entrapment statute relied upon by defendant, ORS 161.275, provides:
'(1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.
(Emphasis supplied.)
On trial defendant admitted that she approached an undercover man, offered him a pound of marihuana for $130 and sold it to him for that amount of money. Defendant contended she was entrapped because the undercover agent was her friend and he had several times previously asked her to procure drugs for him. Trial was to the court without a jury and there was some conflict in the testimony. We conclude that entrapment was not established as a matter of law. The trial court's findings on factual matters are as binding as a jury verdict.
After the presentation of evidence, the trial judge concluded:
'* * *
'I simply don't find entrapment here. There is nothing to indicate that anything was offered or given to her by way of inducement. * * *
'She seemed to rely somewhat on a separate defense, which is one of duress, which has not been raised, but that is not involved here. The issue is one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Weiskerger
...People v. Calvano, 30 N.Y.S.2d 199, 331 N.Y.2d 430, 282 N.E.2d 322 (1972); Lee v. State, 655 P.2d 1046 (Okla.1982); State v. Murphy, 21 Or.App. 630, 535 P.2d 779 (1975); State v. Jones, 416 A.2d 676 (R.I.1980); State v. Nelsen, 89 S.D. 1, 228 N.W.2d 143 (1975); State v. Jones, 598 S.W.2d 20......
-
State v. Matheson
...Simmons v. State, 8 Md.App. 355, 364-65, 259 A.2d 814, 816-17 (1969); State v. Grilli, Minn., 230 N.W.2d 455, 446 (1975); State v. Murphy, Or.App., 535 P.2d 779 (1975); State v. Curtis, Utah, 542 P.2d 744, 746 (1975); State v. Amundson, 69 Wis.2d 554, 564-65, 230 N.W.2d 775, 781 It is appar......
-
State v. McDaniel
...of entrapment, “the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” ORS 161.055(1); see also State v. Murphy, 21 Or.App. 630, 535 P.2d 779 (1975). In reviewing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, we view the evidence in the li......
-
State v. McDaniel, A143812
..."the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt." ORS 161.055(1); see also State v. Murphy, 21 Or App 630, 535 P2d 779 (1975). In reviewing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, we view the evidence in the light most favorabl......