X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver it. After a pretrial evidentiary hearing, the trial judge denied appellant’s motion to dismiss based on entrapment. The appellant then pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years’ probation and a $5,000 fine. He appealed the denial of his entrapment motion to the court of appeals under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(2)(A). The court of appeals reversed appellant’s conviction and ordered the case dismissed because the state “failed to meet its burden to disprove entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt.” HOLDING:The court reverses the decision of the court of appeals and affirms the trial court’s judgment. The court agrees with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has stated that “Generally speaking, a defendant’s testimony cannot by itself establish entrapment as a matter of law because, absent unusual circumstances, the jury is almost always entitled to disbelieve that testimony.” The appellant testified that a government agent tempted him with repeated and urgent requests for both sex and drugs. “Listening to appellant’s words from the witness stand, one reasonable trier of fact might well conclude that this was an appalling example of police misconduct and law enforcement trickery run rampant. Another reasonable trier of fact might conclude from appellant’s words, appearance, demeanor, and tone that he was indulging in post hoc creativity. This is an instance in which the defendant’s credibility is crucial.” The court finds evidence in the record that might raise a question of credibility or a disputed fact issue. The fact that appellant had recently been released from prison for a prior methamphetamine conviction is of some probative value in assessing the probabilities of whether the agent “induced” appellant to first inject methamphetamine and then stuffed two packets of methamphetamine in his pocket, the court states. Further, the appellant’s prior felony conviction for possession of illegal drugs aids in assessing his witness credibility under Rule 609 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. There is evidence in this record, coupled with reasonable inferences from that evidence, that raises a disputed fact issue concerning the circumstances under which the two packets of methamphetamine found their way into appellant’s pants’ pocket. The court holds that appellant failed to prove his “entrapment as a matter of law” defense with undisputed facts, and, therefore, the trial court did not err in denying his pretrial motion. OPINION:Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous court.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.