Case Name: PEOPLE v. SOPER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-01-27
Citations: 57 Mich. App. 677
Docket Number: Docket No. 17249
Parties: PEOPLE v SOPER
Judges: Before: Danhof, P. J., and Bronson, and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 57
Pages: 677–686

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v SOPER
Opinion of the Court
1. Drugs and Narcotics — Entrapment—Trickery—Subterfuge.
A defendant in a trial for delivery of heroin was entrapped as a matter of law where a police officer abused the allowable processes of detection and enforcement by exploiting a childhood friendship and activating a preconceived plan by feigning addiction and making repeated requests playing on the defendant’s friendship and sympathy in order to induce the otherwise innocent defendant to obtain heroin for him.
Dissent by Danhof, P. J.
2. Criminal Law — Entrapment—Juries—Subjective Test — Persons Otherwise Innocent.
A court properly found that there was no entrapment as a matter of law and properly instructed the jury under the subjective test of entrapment where the complaint in the case in which the entrapment defense was asserted was Med prior to a Supreme Court ruling which rejected the subjective standards and which has been held to be prospective only.
3. Criminal Law — Entrapment—Quantum of Proof — Federal Implied Exception.
The quantum of proof which a prosecutor must meet under the Federal implied exception theory of entrapment to prove non-entrapment, once the defense is raised, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Criminal Law — Entrapment—Defenses—Subjective Test — Burden of Proof — Preponderance of Evidence.
A trial court properly instructed the jury, in a case where the complaint was filed prior to a Supreme Court ruling which rejected the subjective test of entrapment, that a defendant has the burden to prove entrapment by a preponderance of evidence.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 25 Am Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics and Poisons §§ 43, 46, 47.
Entrapment to commit offense with respect to narcotics law. 33 ALR2d 883.
[2-4] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 143-145.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 156.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, John P. O’Brien, J.
Submitted Division 1 October 11, 1974, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 17249.)
Decided January 27, 1975.
Leave to appeal applied for.
George J. Soper was convicted of unlawful delivery of heroin. Defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Michael O. Lang, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Thomas A. Maher, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Danhof, P. J., and Bronson, and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Bronson, J.
We have reviewed the facts as accurately set forth in Judge Danhof s opinion. We also agree with Judge Danhofs statement of the law of entrapment applicable to those facts. However, after careful consideration of the facts in light of the relevant legal principles, we conclude that defendant Soper was "induced to commit" the crime of delivery of heroin, United States v Russell, 411 US 423, 435; 93 S Ct 1637, 1644; 36 L Ed 2d 366, 375 (1973), because the police conduct in this case constituted entrapment as a matter of law.
The only reason the police officer investigated Soper was the latter's recent release from prison and previous addiction to narcotics. The officer exploited a childhood friendship with Soper to establish personal contact, and then activated his preconceived plan to induce Soper to obtain heroin for him. In order to convince Soper that he had a serious need for heroin, he falsely maintained that he was an addict, again playing on Soper's friendship and sympathy. At first Soper hesitated, indicating that he no longer had any "connections" and probably could not find any heroin. Only after the officer again approached Soper with the same request was the heroin obtained. We find the tactics utilized in this case repugnant.
We hold that the "processes of detection and enforcement" used here were "abused by the instigation by government officials of an act on the part of persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them to its commission and to punish them". Sorrells v United States, 287 US 435, 448; 53 S Ct 210, 215; 77 L Ed 413, 420 (1932).
Defendant's conviction is reversed and he is discharged.
O'Hara, J., concurred.