Court Opinion

ID: 9547218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:43:51.609228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:28.745189
License: Public Domain

*203PARKER, Chief Justice
(dissenting-).
I find no occasion to reverse the conviction for insufficiency of evidence to overcome the defense of entrapment. The testimony of Robert Laabs, the person to whom defendant delivered the controlled substance, was that he went to defendant’s house and asked him if he could buy some hashish, that defendant left and returned thirty minutes later with two packages of hashish which he sold to Laabs for $80.00.
In that version there is no hint of entrapment, and indeed, if the jury believed that defendant immediately complied upon being requested to sell a controlled substance, this alone was sufficient evidence of predisposition. A conflict of evidence was developed by defendant, and the matter therefore became one for submission to the jury. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 452? 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413, 86 A. L.R. 249; United States v. Costello, 5 Cir., 483 F.2d 1366, 1367.