Usry v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CARLISLE; GARDNER, P. J., and TOWNSEND
• Citation: Usry v. State, 90 Ga.App. 644, 83 S.E.2d 843 (Ga. App. 1954)
• Decision Date: 21 September 1954
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 35294,35294,2
• Parties: F. L. USRY v. The STATE

Page 843

83 S.E.2d 843

90 Ga.App. 644

F. L. USRY v. The STATE.

No. 35294.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Sept. 21, 1954.

Nicholson, Fleming & Bartow, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

George Hains, Sol. Gen., Augusta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

CARLISLE, Judge.

The defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve from two to three years in the penitentiary for the offense of bribery under an indictment which charged substantially the following: The accused on May 8, 1953, did unlawfully, maliciously, directly and indirectly give to and offer to give $50 to A. M. Redd, Deputy Sheriff of Richmond County, an officer in an office of government and of justice in this State, to influence Redd's behaviour as an officer in an office of government and of justice, in that he paid and offered to pay Redd $50 if Redd would agree to allow him and others to violate the gaming laws of the State and agree not to interfere with him in the violation of the gaming laws. The defendant's motion for a new trial, based on the usual general grounds and three special grounds, was denied, and the defendant has brought the present writ of error to review that judgment.

1. The language of the indictment imports that it was drawn under the provisions of Code, § 26-4101, which defines bribery as 'the giving or receiving any undue reward to influence the behaviour of the person receiving such reward, in the discharge of his duty in any office of government or of justice.'

(a) In Payne v. State, 153 Ga. 882, 113 S.E. 446, it was held that 'The office of a policeman of the city of Atlanta is embraced in the expression, 'office of government or of justice,' within the meaning of * * * [Code, § 26-4101].' By the same token we hold that the deputy sheriff of Richmond County holds an office of government or of justice within the meaning of that section. See also, in this connection, Taylor v. State, 174 Ga. 52, 55, 162 S.E. 504.

(b) "Entrapment' exists where the idea and intention of the commission of crime originates with an officer of the law and he by undue persuasion, incitement, and deceitful means, induces the accused to commit an act which the accused would not have committed except for the conduct of the officer.' Sutton v. State, 59 Ga.App. 198, 200 S.E. 225. An 'entrapment' does not exist merely because an officer furnishes an opportunity to commit an offense to the accused, who is ready and willing to commit the offense. Sutton v. State, supra. Under an application of the foregoing principles of law to the facts of this case, the evidence authorized the verdict, as the jury was authorized to find that the defendant telephoned the deputy sheriff of Richmond County, asking him to come alone to the defendant's club, and saying that he wished to talk to him; that the officer, suspecting that the defendant would endeavor to bribe him, took along his working partner, another officer, concealed in the trunk of his automobile; that the defendant paid the deputy sheriff $50 when he arrived at the club and promised an additional $50 at the end of the week, and also promised the officer and his working partner $100 a week thereafter if the officers would allow him to engage in gambling in his club and would warn him in advance of any impending raid upon the club; that this constituted an effort on the defendant's part to influence an 'officer of government or of justice' in the discharge of his duty; and that, since the defendant initiated the bribery himself, he was not entrapped, within the legal definition of entrapment, by the officer's laying a trap for him.

2. Where, upon the...