Opinion ID: 1163582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ready Complacency

Text: The State seeks to establish one or more of the following proof requisites of criminal design, predisposition, readiness, or the planning required by the instruction, by substituting ready complacency on the part of Janski as being proof of the ultimate fact necessary to defeat and overcome the defense of entrapment. [3] Complaisance (complacence) is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as willing compliance to the wishes of others. Ready complacency comes into the philosophy which seeks to overcome the defense of entrapment through a rule which is discussed, among other places, in United States v. Becker, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 1007, 1008, decided in 1933, where that court suggested these excuses for inducement: ... . an existing course of similar criminal conduct; the accused's already formed design to commit the crime or similar crimes; his willingness to do so, as evinced by ready complaisance.  [Emphasis mine] [4] Ready complaisance used in this context is an evidence tool to show willingness as that attitude pertains to (a) an existing course of similar criminal conduct on the part of accused or (b) the accused's already formed design to commit the crime or similar crimes. Ready complaisance is not, in my opinion, the ultimate provable fact under the United States v. Becker doctrine (or the rule referred to by the majority in 33 A.L.R.2d 886, supra)  it is only a way to establish willingness to commit the crime or similar crimes or to show an existing course of similar criminal conduct in order that the elements of predisposition  criminal design or the planning spoken of in the instruction may be established to excuse the inducement. The proof concept of ready complaisance comes into focus in a similar way in United States v. Sherman, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 880, 882, where Judge Learned Hand, writing the opinion for the United States Court of Appeals, December 16, 1972, had this to say in speaking to the question of what constitutes a valid reply to the defense of entrapment: ... . it is a valid reply to the defence, if the prosecution can satisfy the jury that the accused was ready and willing to commit the offence charged, WHENEVER THE OPPORTUNITY OFFERED. In that event the inducement which brought about the actual offence was no more than one instance of the kind of conduct in which the accused was prepared to engage; and the prosecution has not seduced an innocent person, but has only provided the means for the accused to realize his preexisting purpose. The proof of this may be by evidence of his past offences, of his preparation, even of his `ready complaisance.' [Emphasis mine] Again, ready complaisance is a proof vehicle for establishing ultimate facts of the accused's being: willing to commit the offence charged, whenever the opportunity offered. and as a way to show a preexisting purpose on the part of the accused. I suggest that, when viewed under the magnifying glass of Sherman and Becker, supra, and absent a showing of some preparation for the act complained of (i.e., some evidence of an intent to commit the crime)  a similar course of conduct  an already-formed design  a willingness to commit the offence whenever the opportunity offered, or evidence of some kind of preexisting purpose,  ready complaisance will not substitute for those required elements of proof. I disagree with the majority for this reason: We interpret the meaning of ready complacency and its roll as an excuse for inducement differently. I say that a ready complacency on the part of the accused may be considered in showing (a) an existing course of similar conduct or (b) the accused's prior-formed design to commit the crime or similar crimes and a willingness to commit this one. While the majority and concurring opinions seem to say that a showing of an attitude of ready complacency unrelated to proof of (a) an existing course of similar conduct or (b) the accused's prior-formed design to commit this crime or similar crimes is sufficient unto itself to create a jury issue on entrapment.