Opinion ID: 1342286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Origin of Criminal Design:

Text: [W]hen the defense of entrapment is raised, defendant's predisposition to commit the crime becomes the central inquiry. State v. Salame, 24 N.C.App. 1, 10, 210 S.E.2d 77, 83 (1974), cert. denied, 286 N.C. 419, 211 S.E.2d 800 (1975). See United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). There is ample evidence before us disclosing that defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged. He bragged to the undercover agents that he dealt in stolen cars, that he had inside contacts at Coggin Pontiac, and that he could get better and more expensive cars and other goods, etc. Officer Raney testified with respect to this aspect of the transaction as follows: When I had examined the car, I came back inside at which time the defendant stated that he could get new Mercedes and Cadillacs. .... When I re-entered the building I told the defendant that I would give him $400.00 for the car. He agreed to that. So I laid $400.00 on the counter, and Mr. Luster took the money. I don't know exactly how long this transaction took, probably ten minutes. Mr. Luster said he could get new Mercedes and Cadillacs, that he had someone working with him. He didn't tell me specifically how he could get Mercedes or Cadillacs. He did not tell me how he got this particular automobile. I did not ask him how he did it. I wanted to ask him, but I didn't have the chance. Agent Black, one of the undercover SBI agents, testified in this regard as follows: Luster asked if we could handle several new cars and stated that he had access to new Dodges, Cordobas, Challengers, and that he had people working with him on the inside at the Dodge dealership just outside of Durham. He stated that he also might be able to bring us Mercedes and Cadillacs. Officer R. D. Simmons of the Durham Police Department who was operating the video camera testified in part as follows: I observed the two suspects enter through the front door of the operation, walk up to the counter where some conversation was held between the parties. Mr. Raney then left the operation and there was some conversation between the parties and Agent Black of the SBI. A few minutes later Officer Raney returned, there was discussion between the parties about the vehicle that was purchased by the undercover officers as well as a conversation held by Mr. Luster with regard to him being able to bring in some other cars, referring to Mercedes-Benz and Cadillacs. Officer Raney then placed approximately $400.00 on the counter which was recorded by the video camera and on the cassette tape. Mr. Luster picked the money, then the two suspects left the operation and the officers then made other transactions. The following excerpts from the transcript of the videotape of the transaction verify the testimony of these witnesses: LUSTER: Yeah, everybody calls me Buddy. Look, I want to know whether, you know, I could get back with you on something. `Cause, like, I got access to the damn cars, right? BLACK: Unh-hunh. LUSTER: And, ah, if the money is right, man, I can get you any damn thing you want. To be frank about it. BLACK: Well, we'll have to talk about what you want in the way of money. LUSTER: Well, everything I'll be bringing will be new, see. BLACK: Unh-hunh. LUSTER: So what I really would like to do is I'd like to talk in terms of anywhere from five on up when you're talking about a brand new car. BLACK: Well, depends on what it is. LUSTER: Okay. Large cars. What are you saying, like Cadillacs, Mercedes. BLACK: Yes. LUSTER: Okay, I see what you (inaudible). BLACK: Five usually is the very tops we can pay on anything, unless it's something real nice. .... AGENT: What kind of cars are you talking about? LUSTER: Well, it'd be in the range of Dodge, orDodge, Cordoba, Challenger, or anything in that range. AGENT: Some of those little Dodges? Imports? Like a Colt or something? LUSTER: Yeah, well, it's a Charger. BURNETTE: That's a Challenger. LUSTER: Challenger. .... RANEY: You work at Coggins (inaudible). LUSTER: No, I just got access to a lot of stuff (inaudible). I know some people out there. RANEY: So you got some people that will help you? LUSTER: Yeah, got some people that's helping me, is what I'm saying. So I wanted to get in touch with y'all and see what kind of business we could talk, really. AGENT: We can do some business. .... LUSTER: Well, the way I be dealing with it, the car don't actually be hot, hot. See, it's like, ah, a car that has been rented before, and, like, the rental cars, they may havemay take upward of two months before they even do anything. Depends on whether they have to rent it out again. See what I'm saying? With this fleet, you know? RANEY: So they don't even miss it? LUSTER: Nah. Nah. AGENT: Okay, that's cool. That's cool. ....LUSTER: They won't miss it for two or three weeks, probably. .... LUSTER: Well, look, what kind of price are we talking on this one? BLACK: Well, you've seen it, man. You tell him. I don't know. RANEY: It's a nice little car. On a brand new one like that, I'd go four. Four hundred dollars. LUSTER: Okay, sounds sweet. RANEY: This is your first deal, so I'm going to do you right. BLACK: We may not be able to go that high all the time. RANEY: May not be able to go that high all the time. It's according to how things are going on the other end. BLACK: And whenever anybody comes in down here for the first time and brings us something nice, you know, we try and do them right, you know. LUSTER: When I come back, I'll probably have something nice (inaudible). .... LUSTER: Well, what I'm trying to tell you is this. Look, it may not be just this kind of car. See what I'm saying? It may beyeah, I can get a Mercedes, any damn thing (inaudible). BLACK: Hey, man, if you can bring us a Mercedes, we're in business. LUSTER: What kind of price you talking about when you saysee, I like to know what price it is. That way, I can pick what I want (inaudible). BLACK: We'll go a little higher than four on a Mercedes. LUSTER: You'll go what, now? BLACK: I'll go a little higher than four on a Mercedes. I would like to see it first, you know. I don't want to talk about price until I see the merchandise. See what I mean? LUSTER: Okay. AGENT: But if you can get a Mercedes in here, my man, we'll do some business. LUSTER: Or a Cadillac? AGENT: Or a brand new Cadillac. We want brand new ones. LUSTER: Brand new, I don't mess with brand new ones. (Inaudible). .... AGENT: Man, you get us a Mercedes, a brand new Mercedes, we can do some good business with you. LUSTER: Hey, man, that looks good to me. (AGENT hands money to Luster.) In support of his contention that he did not know the vehicle was stolen, defendant argues that his statements to the officers were not truthful; that at the behest of Burnette, he was merely puffing to impress them. We reject this argument. Defendant accepted from the officers a few hundred dollars for a relatively new automobile and then accepted from Burnette only a percentage commission of that amount. The facts belie the contention that he did not know before he entered Part Time Help Limited that the cars were stolen. When a defendant's predisposition to commit the crime charged is demonstrated, the defense of entrapment is not available to him. Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366; Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932). It is true of course that the undercover agents provided the opportunity for defendant to make the sales. However, merely providing the opportunity for one predisposed to criminal conduct does not constitute entrapment. See Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; State v. Boles, 246 N.C. 83, 97 S.E.2d 476 (1957). Based on the record before us, defendant was not entitled to have the defense of entrapment submitted to the jury. The fact that the trial court did so was favorable to the defendant and cannot be assigned as error. Defendant has not met his burden of proving either inducement or that the criminal design originated in the minds of government officials. There was no evidence of inducement by the law enforcement officers themselves. Nor do we accept defendant's argument that Burnette acted as an unwitting agent for the officers in inducing defendant's participation. In fact, the evidence negates the existence of any agency relationship. Defendant was not entitled to an instruction of entrapment by an agent. Finally, we find sufficient evidence negating defendant's theory that he was an innocent victim without predisposition to commit the crime. While the question presented in the first case is whether defendant was entitled to an instruction on entrapment specifically by an agent of the police, the question presented in the second case is whether he was entitled to the general entrapment instruction.