State v. Royal

• Decision Date: 03 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 36823,36823
• Citation: 247 Ga. 309,275 S.E.2d 646
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. Larry ROYAL.

Page 646

275 S.E.2d 646

247 Ga. 309

STATE v. Larry ROYAL.

No. 36823.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 3, 1981.

H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., Richard H. Goolsby, Asst. Dist. Atty., Moultrie, for the State.

Harry Jay Altman, Thomasville, for Larry Royal.

GREGORY, Justice.

Certiorari was granted in this case to determine first, whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the failure of the State to rebut defendant Royal's testimony as to entrapment with the testimony of the confidential informant entitled Royal to an acquittal, and secondly, whether the trial court erred in overruling defendant's Brady motion seeking disclosure of the informant's identity.

(1) Two undercover GBI agents and a confidential informant went together to Pal's Drive-in in Thomasville on the evening of July 27, 1979, to see if the agents could obtain any illegal drugs. There was no plan to meet with any particular person at Pal's, but defendant Larry Royal was there drinking and shooting pool.

Soon after the trio arrived, the confidential informant took the defendant aside and after some discussion, it was agreed that they would obtain some marijuana. Subsequent to this discussion, the two rejoined the GBI agents and after shooting pool and drinking together for a couple of hours, defendant Royal, the confidential informant and the two GBI agents went together in Royal's car to a residence in Thomasville. There, one of the GBI agents gave Royal $10. Royal went into the residence while the other three waited in the car, and returned shortly with a bag of green leafy material later identified as being marijuana.

The defendant's testimony as to the discussions between him and the confidential informant, which took place outside the hearing of the GBI agents, was uncontradicted by the State as the confidential informant was not called as a witness.

Where a defendant raises an affirmative defense and testifies to the same, the burden is on the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Coleman v. State, 141 Ga.App. 193(2), 233 S.E.2d 42 (1977). See State v. Moore, 237 Ga. 269, 227 S.E.2d 241 (1976). Ordinarily, the determination of whether the State has met its burden rests with the jury. Code Ann. § 27-2301. However, where there is no conflict in the evidence, and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, demands a verdict of acquittal, the trial court in a criminal case must direct a verdict of acquittal. Code Ann. § 27-1802; Merino v. State, 230 Ga. 604, 198 S.E.2d 311 (1973).

The Court of Appeals has held in a number of cases that the failure of the State to produce the confidential informant to rebut a defendant's entrapment testimony required a directed verdict of acquittal. See, e. g., Harpe v. State, 134 Ga.App. 493, 214 S.E.2d 738 (1975); Hall v. State, 136 Ga.App. 622, 222 S.E.2d 140 (1975); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga.App. 193, 233 S.E.2d 42 (1977); Robinson v. State, 145 Ga.App. 17, 243 S.E.2d 257 (1978). Compare, U. S. v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1971). We do not, however, read those cases as establishing a per se rule that a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict where the informant is not called to rebut the defendant's testimony of entrapment.

A distinction must be made between evidence which raises a defense of entrapment and which would require that the jury be charged as to the law of entrapment and the burden of proof thereon, and evidence which, under the standards set out in Code Ann. § 27-1802, would demand a finding of entrapment and, therefore, a directed verdict of acquittal. ¹

Lack of conflict in the evidence is only one of the criteria in Code Ann. § 27-1802. Thus a defendant's testimony as to entrapment, even if unrebutted by any other witness to the alleged misconduct, will not entitle him to a directed verdict of acquittal unless the unrebutted testimony, together with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, demands a finding that entrapment occurred. ²

In this case, Royal's testimony did not demand a finding that he was entrapped. He did not know at the time of the sale that the informant was an informant or that the GBI agents were GBI agents. Nor did the informer lead Royal to believe that by obtaining marijuana, he was assisting the State. Therefore, Hughes v. State, 152 Ga.App. 80, 262 S.E.2d 245 (1979); Perry v. State, 143 Ga.App. 227, 237 S.E.2d 705 (1977); Coleman v. State, supra; and Harpe v. State, supra, are distinguishable.

Royal admitted that he was not threatened or coerced to obtain the marijuana. Thus, Hall v. State, supra, is distinguishable.

While Royal demurred somewhat to the informant's initial suggestion that they go obtain marijuana, and while he testified that the informant got angry at his initial refusal, the informant's requests were not repeated on several different occasions on different days. The conversation that occurred between the informant and Royal out of the hearing of the agents, lasted no more than a few minutes. Robinson v. State, supra, is therefore distinguishable. ³ See Brooks v. State, 125 Ga.App. 867, 189 S.E.2d 448 (1972).

There were in Royal's testimony some indications of entrapment. For example, aside from Royal's initial demurral, the informant selected the source from which the marijuana was purchased, and the GBI agents provided the money with which to make the purchase. See Griffin v. State, 154 Ga.App. 261(3), 267 S.E.2d 867 (1980).

On the other hand, there was some indication of non-entrapment. While Royal testified that if he had not been approached that evening he would have continued to drink and shoot pool, he further testified that "If somebody brings it (marijuana) up, I'm right here." He also admitted smoking marijuana that evening, both before and after the sale. Thus, defendant Royal's own testimony presented some evidence of predisposition, although not so strong as in Mafnas v. State, 149 Ga.App. 286(6), 254 S.E.2d 409 (1979) or Garrett v. State, 133 Ga.App. 564(3), 211 S.E.2d 584 (1974), where the evidence of predisposition was so strong as to preclude a defense of entrapment.

This is one of those cases in which a question of fact was presented as to entrapment for determination by the jury. The evidence did not, however, demand a finding that defendant Royal was entrapped into the commission of a crime. Smith v. State, 239 Ga. 477(1), 238 S.E.2d 116 (1977); McDonald v. State, 156 Ga.App. 143(4), 273 S.E.2d 881 (1980); Marshall v. State, 143 Ga.App. 249(1), 237 S.E.2d 709 (1977); Huskey v. State, 139 Ga.App. 752, 229 S.E.2d 547 (1976).

The trial court charged the law of entrapment and the jury decided the issue adversely to the defendant. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant Royal was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that his testimony was not rebutted by the testimony of the informant.

(2) While ordinarily this court, in granting certiorari, does not undertake to dispose of issues not reached by the Court of Appeals in its decision, cf. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 217 Ga. 206(1), 121 S.E.2d 649 (1961), it is not precluded from doing so. Georgia Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV (Code Ann. § 2-3104). See Central Railroad Co. v. Kent, 91 Ga. 687, 18 S.E. 850 (1893). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 28 of this court, we will address Royal's contention that the trial court erred in failing to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.

Where an informant is a mere tipster, disclosure of his identity is not required. Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160(2), 231 S.E.2d 729 (1977). But where the informer is a witness or participant, a request for disclosure requires the trial court to balance the benefits of disclosure to the defendant against the resulting harm to the government. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Thornton, supra. "Whether a proper balance renders non-disclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors." Roviaro, supra, at 62, 77 S.Ct. at 628, 629, 1 L.Ed.2d at 646.

Where a defendant charges that a confidential informant has entrapped him outside the presence of any other witnesses, Roviaro would ordinarily require disclosure of the informant's identity, since the defense of entrapment would rest upon allegations which only the informant could confirm or deny. ⁴

In this case, however, those factors mitigating in favor of disclosure were not timely presented to the trial court.

At the hearing on Royal's first motion for disclosure, held prior to trial, the defendant presented no evidence, and if his attorney gave any indications to the trial court as to the possible relevance of the informant's testimony, they do not appear in the record.

Royal's second motion for disclosure came near the end of the presentation of the State's evidence, at which time no evidence of entrapment had yet been presented. Royal's attorney, in his argument on the motion, made no...