State v. Trujillo, 29643-4-I
| Court | Court of Appeals of Washington |
| Citation | 75 Wn.App. 913,883 P.2d 329 |
| Docket Number | No. 29643-4-I,29643-4-I |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Edward Anthony TRUJILLO, Russell James Hebert, Jr., Defendants, Terrance Blaine Chrisostomo, Appellant, Alan Darry Frank, and Brett Anthony Coleman, and each of them, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1994 |
Page 913
v.
Edward Anthony TRUJILLO, Russell James Hebert, Jr., Defendants,
Terrance Blaine Chrisostomo, Appellant,
Alan Darry Frank, and Brett Anthony Coleman, and each of
them, Defendants.
Division 1.
[883 P.2d 330]
Page 914
Neal J. Philip, Wash. Appellate Defender Assn., Seattle, for appellant.Gregory Eugene Jackson, Seattle, for respondent.
GROSSE, Judge.
Terrance B. Chrisostomo appeals his conviction of one count of delivery of cocaine. He claims the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. We affirm.
In January, 1991, the management of the Ball-Incon Glass Packaging Company (Ball-Incon) asked the Seattle Police Department to investigate suspected drug transactions taking
Page 915
place on company property and involving company personnel. Detective Michael D. Keefe of the narcotics unit contacted Don Skinner, a paid informant with whom he had previously worked, and arranged for Skinner to become a Ball-Incon employee. In February 1991, Skinner began working at Ball-Incon under the name of Don Jensen and was assigned to Chrisostomo's crew.Chrisostomo testified that one day at work, Skinner asked him whether he knew where Skinner and his friend could get an eightball. Chrisostomo asked, "eight-ball?", and Skinner said he meant an eight-ball of cocaine. Chrisostomo replied that he "didn't know the first thing about it."
Skinner asked Chrisostomo whether he knew anyone who did know something about it. Chrisostomo replied, "not for sure", but "maybe somebody I know might know, but I couldn't tell you exactly." When Skinner asked if Chrisostomo would check, he told Skinner he "couldn't guarantee anything."
The two men continued to talk. Chrisostomo commented about the recent nice weather and remarked that there had to be a better way to make a living. He testified that, by this comment, he meant nothing more than to imply that there had to be something better than the rotating shift schedule used at Ball-Incon, which interfered with sleeping and social plans. Skinner interpreted Chrisostomo's comment to mean dealing drugs: "We were standing at the Coke machine and coffee machine, and he says, I think there's got to be a better way to make a living. And I said, there is, but it's illegal." According to Skinner, Chrisostomo replied, "We'll have to talk." Skinner interpreted this as suggesting a drug transaction.
Skinner asked Chrisostomo about getting cocaine on at least three occasions over the next 3 or 4 days. Each time, Chrisostomo [883 P.2d 331] told him he had no information. On one occasion, Skinner asked Chrisostomo what he thought the price of an eight-ball would be. Chrisostomo said he did not know for certain, but estimated $150. Eventually, Chrisostomo informed Skinner an eight-ball cost $250.
Page 916
On March 7, 1991, Chrisostomo and a co-worker drove into a fast food restaurant's parking lot and saw Skinner and another man sitting in a car parked nearby. 1 Skinner approached Chrisostomo and asked him if he had obtained the cocaine. 2 When Chrisostomo said he was unable to get any cocaine, Skinner pressed him for an explanation. Chrisostomo lied and said the person with whom he spoke had no cocaine. In fact, Chrisostomo had not talked to anyone. Skinner suggested that he and Chrisostomo meet later that night at a nearby tavern. He gave Chrisostomo his pager number with directions to call him when he had information. Skinner asked for Chrisostomo's telephone number. In response, Chrisostomo gave him a number he knew had been disconnected so Skinner would be unable to contact him by telephone.
When Chrisostomo arrived home, he called a friend, thinking he might know where to get cocaine. Approximately 1 1/2 hours later, the friend called and said he was able to obtain some cocaine. Chrisostomo asked the friend to meet him at the tavern where Skinner was waiting. Chrisostomo then called the tavern and arranged to meet Skinner that evening. He testified that he did not call Skinner's pager number so Skinner would be unable to obtain the telephone number from which he was calling.
At the tavern, Chrisostomo obtained the cocaine from his friend and delivered it to Detective Keefe in exchange for $250. According to Chrisostomo, he delivered the cocaine solely in an attempt to get Skinner to stop pestering him. Chrisostomo testified: "I figured the only way I could get this guy to leave me alone was to get him what he wanted, and that was basically what I--against my better judgment, that's what I did."
Chrisostomo was charged with one count of delivery of cocaine. The State objected to the instruction on the defense of entrapment. The court removed the instruction over defense
Page 917
counsel's objection. The jury found Chrisostomo guilty as charged. He was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment, the bottom of the standard range.The defense of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hankins, 35604-0-II
...43 Wn.2d 807, 264 P.2d 233 (1953); State v. Galisia, 63 Wn.App. 833, 822 P.2d 303 (1992), overruled on other grounds, State v. Trujillo, 75 Wn.App. 913, 883 P.2d 329 (1994); State v. Cleman, 18 Wn.App. 495, 568 P.2d 832 (1977); State v. Taplin, 9 Wn.App. 545, 513 P.2d 549 (1973); State v. N......
-
State v. Arbogast, 99452-8
...P.3d 115 (2020). The majority made three holdings relevant to the case before us: (1) it rejected State v. Trujillo , 75 Wash. App. 913, 883 P.2d 329 (1994), (2) it held that Arbogast's lack of criminal history was admissible under ER 404, and (3) it held Arbogast presented sufficient evide......
-
State v. Hankins, No. 35604-0-II (Wash. App. 1/8/2008), 35604-0-II
...Wn.2d 807, 264 P.2d 233 (1953); State v. Galisia, 63 Wn. App. 833, 822 P.2d 303 (1992), overruled on other grounds, State v. Trujillo, 75 Wn. App. 913, 883 P.2d 329 (1994); State v. Cleman, 18 Wn. App. 495, 568 P.2d 832 (1977); State v. Taplin, 9 Wn. App. 545, 513 P.2d 549 (1973); State v. ......
-
State v. Lively, 60389-8
...75 Wash.App. 460, 471, 879 P.2d 300 (1994) review denied, 125 Wash.2d 1024, 890 P.2d 465 (1995); State v. Trujillo, 75 Wash.App. 913, 917, 883 P.2d 329 (1994), review denied, 126 Wash.2d 1008, 892 P.2d 1088 The question before this court is whether defendants who claim the entrapment defens......