Thompson v. State
Decision Date | 18 January 1991 |
Citation | 575 So.2d 1238 |
Parties | James Scott THOMPSON v. STATE. CR 89-1459. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William Dowsing Davis III, Birmingham, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Jean A. Therkelsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
James Scott Thompson was indicted for one count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of § 20-2-80, Code of Alabama 1975; three counts of the unlawful distribution of cocaine, in violation of § 13A-12-211, Code of Alabama 1975; and one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of § 13A-12-212(a)(1), Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found Thompson guilty on all counts as charged in the indictments, and he was sentenced to serve a term of 15 years' imprisonment on the trafficking charge, seven years' imprisonment on each of the three unlawful distribution charges, and one year and one day on the possession charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Two issues are raised on appeal.
Thompson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdicts and judgments of conviction with respect to the trafficking and three unlawful distribution charges, because, he argues, the State failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he was predisposed to commit the offenses charged. We disagree.
The burden of proof for a defendant seeking to raise the defense of entrapment is articulated in United States v. Andrews, 765 F.2d 1491 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, Royster v. United States, 474 U.S. 1064, 106 S.Ct. 815, 88 L.Ed.2d 789 (1986):
765 F.2d at 1499 (quoting United States v. Dickens, 524 F.2d 441, 444 (5th Cir.1975)).
The record reveals that Thompson presented insufficient evidence to raise a jury question on the issue of entrapment; hence the burden of proof never shifted to the State to demonstrate Thompson's predisposition to commit the offenses charged.
The State's evidence shows that on three separate occasions Thompson, at the request of undercover police officer Chuck Taylor, obtained an "8-ball" of cocaine weighing approximately one-eighth of an ounce from Thompson's supplier, Larry Anderson, and delivered it to Taylor. The State's evidence further showed that on a fourth occasion, Thompson, at the request of Taylor, obtained from Thompson's supplier 1.5 ounces of cocaine and delivered it to Taylor in exchange for $1,600.
Taylor testified that, prior to his first meeting with Thompson, Taylor had received information from the FBI that Thompson sold drugs in the Valley Avenue area of Homewood. According to Taylor, during his first conversation with Thompson, Thompson told Taylor to give him a call if he needed anything. Taylor further testified that Thompson told him that Thompson had a loud car so that people could hear him coming and would buy drugs from him like buying ice cream from an ice cream truck.
Thompson testified in his own defense that he had a cocaine habit which exceeded $200 per day and admitted that he sold the cocaine to Taylor on the four occasions in question but insisted that he was merely a courier and that he did not make any money on the transactions. Thompson also testified that he would never have bought the drugs for Taylor if Taylor had not instigated the "buys" and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitley v. State
...on the basis that the door has been opened." A general objection specifying no grounds preserves nothing for review. Thompson v. State, 575 So.2d 1238 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Further, even if the appellant had correctly preserved this argument, the circuit judge did not err in allowing the testi......
-
Kelley v. State
...than that the prosecutor's statement was an "[i]mproper argument." A general objection preserves nothing for review. Thompson v. State, 575 So.2d 1238 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Further, even if the appellant's objection had been correctly preserved, the appellant's argument would fail on the merit......
-
Cure v. State
...she objected and moved to strike the question. A general objection does not preserve an issue for appellate review. Thompson v. State, 575 So.2d 1238 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Jackson v. State, 553 So.2d 647 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). James Taylor's guilty plea was also brought out without any objecti......
-
Franklin v. State
...that does not specify grounds preserves nothing for review.' Landreth v. State, 600 So.2d 440, 447 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), Thompson v. State, 575 So.2d 1238 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). `A defendant is bound on appeal of a criminal prosecution by the grounds stated for the objection at trial,' Lyde v. Sta......