Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 05 May 1945 |
| Citation | 187 S.W.2d 529 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
A. E. Horn, of Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at a fine of $50.00 and sixty days in jail. That the defendant sold the intoxicating liquor is not denied. The defense interposed and rejected below was that of entrapment based upon the circumstances of the sale.
The testimony of witnesses for the State, who are detectives connected with the Police Department of the City of Memphis, is that information was received by the Police Department that intoxicating liquor was being unlawfully sold by the bell boys employed in this capacity in the Chisca Hotel. Acting under instructions, an officer in civilian clothes, visited the hotel on a certain Sunday morning. As he neared the cashier's desk, the defendant, a bell boy, approached him and he inquired of the bell boy about getting some whiskey. The defendant replied, "yes, sir," and told the officer to catch the elevator and go to the fourth floor and wait for him, which he did. The witness proceeded: "In a few minutes he came up with a quart of whiskey wrapped in a newspaper for which I gave him two marked ten dollar bills." He was then shown and identified this bottle, which he made an exhibit. The ten dollar bills had been marked for identification. They were produced and identified. The officer said further that the defendant charged him $11 for the bottle of whiskey and gave him in change one five and four one dollar bills. As soon as the defendant delivered the whiskey to the officer and he had turned the money over to him, he placed the defendant under arrest and recovered from him the two ten dollar bills. He said that the defendant was clad in a bell boy's uniform at the hotel. The officer admitted that he had had no previous information as to this particular boy selling liquor, but visited the hotel and made inquiry of this bell boy because of the information which had been received that the bell boys at this hotel were engaged in selling intoxicating liquor.
The defendant took the stand and admitted having made the sale and having made the delivery on the fourth floor pursuant to arrangement, saying that he went to his locker and there procured the whiskey. His testimony varied in some details as to just what transpired. He said that the officer told him that he needed a drink; that he was not engaged in the business; that this was the only bottle of liquor he had and he had purchased it at the Peabody liquor store; that he had never been arrested before on a charge of trafficking in liquor. He testified that he did not at first agree to procure the liquor, but that when the request was pressed upon him he told the officer, who was unknown to him to be an officer, that the bottle would probably cost $12.00 if he could get it, and the officer told him that he would give him $11.00 and a tip, and then he finally told the officer that "I will sell you my bottle," which he said he had in a locker where he kept his change of clothes.
The case was submitted to a jury on the plea of not guilty and the jury found the defendant guilty. The motion for a new trial raised the question of entrapment and this defense is that which is relied upon on this appeal.
It appears that the trial Court relied upon the case of Hyde v. State, 131 Tenn. 208, 174 S.W. 1127, as laying down the rule in this State holding that the defense of entrapment is not available. The opinion in the Hyde case, by Mr. Justice Williams, cites and follows Grimm v. United States, 156 U.S. 604, page 610, 15 S.Ct. 470, 472, 39 L.Ed. 550, in which it was said, we think applicable here, that, "it does not appear that it was the purpose of the post-office inspector (that being a case involving a violation of the postal laws) to induce or solicit the commission of a crime, but it was to ascertain whether the defendant was engaged in an unlawful business." (We italicize pertinent language.)
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...on entrapment probably not. The progenitor of our peculiar and perplexing "no entrapment entrapment" defense is Thomas v. State, 182 Tenn. 380, 385, 187 S.W.2d 529, 530 (1945), wherein the Court, citing Hyde, supra, declared that entrapment was not a defense in Tennessee, because "the only ......
-
Williams v. State
...and those below hold it to be clearly established that the doctrine of entrapment is not recognized in this State. See Thomas v. State (1945) 182 Tenn. 380, 187 S.W.2d 529, Hyde v. State (1914) 131 Tenn. 208, 174 S.W. 1127, and Roden v. State (1961) 209 Tenn. 202, 352 S.W.2d 227. The most t......
- Thomas v. State
-
Warden v. State
...testimony.' 219 of 131 Tenn., 1130 of 174 S.W. The above quoted language from the Hyde case was expressly approved in Thomas v. State, 182 Tenn. 380, 187 S.W.2d 529. In Hagemaker v. State, 208 Tenn. 565, 347 S.W.2d 488, the Thomas and Hyde cases are referred to as the leading cases in Tenne......