Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04123/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04123-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfonso Daniel Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

' UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United S,tates Co~rt of Appeals 

rench Circuit 

JUN 6 19 1 

ltOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. ) No. 90-4123 

ALFONSO DANIEL JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. 90-CR-018-A) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellant Alfonso Daniel Johnson appeals his 

conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute in 

violation of 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l). In the district court, 

defendant claimed that he was entrapped by a government agent. 

The court denied defendant's motion for acquittal based on the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-4123 Document: 010110118836 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 1 
J 

entrapment defense, instructed the jury regarding entrapment, and 

the jury convicted. We affirm. 

In 1990, defendant met government informant Roger Silva by 

chance encounter. Defendant knew Silva from their time spent 

together as prisoners in the Utah state prison system. Silva 

asked defendant to help him purchase heroin and telephoned 

defendant several times. Ultimately, defendant purchased the 

heroin for Silva and a government agent. At issue is whether the 

combination of Silva's actions and defendant's predisposition, or 

lack thereof, to purchase heroin for Silva amounted to government 

entrapment. 

Entrapment, as an affirmative defense, controverts the 

government's proof concerning criminal intent. See United States 

v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 1986). To establish an 

entrapment issue sufficient for presentation to the jury, the 

defendant must point to evidence that the government induced his 

criminal conduct and that he was not predisposed to the conduct. 

See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988); United 

States v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 1403, 1418 (10th Cir. 1990); United 

States v. Fadel, 844 F.2d 1425, 1429 (10th Cir. 1988); Ortiz, 804 

F.2d at 1165. Inducement refers to "government conduct which 

creates a substantial risk that an undisposed person or otherwise 

law-abiding citizen would commit the offense." Ortiz, 804 F.2d at 

1165. And predisposition refers to "a defendant's inclination to 

engage in the illegal activity for which he is charged, i.e. that 

he is ready and willing to commit the crime." Id. (citing United 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4123 Document: 010110118836 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 2 
States v. Gurule, 522 F.2d 20, 23 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 

425 U.S. 976 (1976)). 

Defendant argues that the court should have acquitted him as 

a matter of law based on entrapment. A court has the duty to rule 

on the issue as a matter of law, and may order acquittal, when 

material facts regarding inducement and predisposition are 

uncontradicted. Id. at 1164 (citing Gurule, 522 F.2d at 23). We 

review de nova the court's legal determination whether to present 

the issue to the jury or rule on the matter. Id. (citing United 

States v. Reyes, 645 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1981)). The 

government concedes that it induced defendant to commit the 

offense. The dispute is over whether the government's evidence of 

predisposition was sufficient for the court to present the 

entrapment defense to the jury rather than acquit defendant as a 

matter of law. 

Predisposition is "the principal element of the defense of 

entrapment." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63 (citing United States v. 

Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 433 (1973)). "Predisposition may be 

inferred from a defendant's history of involvement in the type of 

criminal activity for which he has been charged, combined with his 

ready response to the inducement offer." Ortiz, 804 F.2d at 1165; 

accord Sullivan, 919 F.2d at 1418. "Evidence of predisposition 

may consist of a showing of a defendant's desire for profit, his 

eagerness to participate in the transaction, his ready response to 

the government's inducement offer, or his demonstrated knowledge 

or experience in the criminal activity under investigation." 

Fadel, 844 F.2d at 1433. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-4123 Document: 010110118836 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 3 
J 

After review of the record, we find that the government 

introduced sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact for the 

jury. Defendant is a former heroin addict who, by his own 

admission, was familiar with the drug trade -- where heroin was 

available, how much it should cost, how to negotiate a purchase, 

the social mores of the transaction when serving as a middleperson 

in a deal. II R. 137, 143-47, 149. Furthermore, the testimony of 

Silva and defendant conflicted as to defendant's initial 

willingness to commit the offense. II R. 69, 122. Entrapment as 

a matter of law would require "undisputed testimony which shows 

conclusively and unmistakably that an otherwise innocent person 

was induced to commit the act complained of by the trickery, 

persuasion or fraud of a government agent." Gurule, 522 F.2d at 

23. The record does not reveal such testimony. Rather, the 

record reveals evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to 

conclude beyond reasonable doubt that defendant was predisposed to 

commit the charged offense. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-4123 Document: 010110118836 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 4