Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:John Ashby, a confidential government informant, bought methamphetamine from Troy Smith during a controlled buy in January 2005. During the buy, Denton Police Department officers moved in and arrested Smith, finding a handgun, a pound of methamphetamine and a pipe in the car. Authorities indicted Smith, and a jury convicted him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The trial court sentenced him to 151 months of imprisonment. Smith appealed. As his first assertion of error, Smith argued that the district court prevented him from presenting an entrapment defense at trial. In 2004 during a traffic stop, the Irving Police Department discovered controlled substances in Smith’s vehicle. As a result, Smith agreed to be an informant, signing an agreement that if he did not assist in the arrest of six suspects, charges would be filed against him. Smith contended that Ken Faye, a narcotics investigator with the Irving Police Department, called him constantly around the time of his methamphetamine and firearm arrest, pressuring him to deliver criminal defendants. Smith proffered for admission the testimony of Faye and Tina Smith, Smith’s ex-wife, to establish the basis of an outrageous conduct defense under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in United States v. Russell. The district court excluded the testimony of Faye and Tina Smith, because it found these witnesses irrelevant to any valid defense. Smith argued on appeal that the testimony of Faye and Tina Smith amounted to a prima facie showing of entrapment for the crime charged in this case. HOLDING:Affirmed. Smith’s counsel never clearly asserted entrapment as a possible defense before the district court, the court stated. Furthermore, Smith proffered no evidence of his lack of predisposition to commit the crime. Because there was no valid prima facie showing of entrapment, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Smith’s proffered testimony on this point. Smith then argued that insufficient evidence supported his conviction for using or carrying a gun during a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. �924(c). Smith argued that the weapon, which was under the passenger seat of his car, was inaccessible to him during the drug crime for which the jury convicted him. Despite this argument, the court found that Smith “obviously” could have used the gun if he felt it necessary. The court noted that the government informant in this case testified that he had seen Smith in possession of a firearm during other drug transactions, indicating that Smith regularly carried a firearm for protection. In short, the court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to allow a rational jury to find that Smith carried a firearm in relation to the underlying drug offense. Finally, Smith contested the admission of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent’s report on the drug testing of evidence allegedly recovered from his car. He complained that the district court failed to require that the government present a chain of custody before it admitted the evidence. But the court found that the prosecutor made the necessary preliminary showing of authenticity at trial through the testimony of the police officers who handled the evidence and the testimony of the DEA chemist, and the jury made the ultimate determination of authenticity. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting either the narcotics or the report on the content of the narcotics. OPINION:Stewart, J.; Davis and Stewart, J.J., and Godbey, D.J.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.