Court Opinion

ID: 9694970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:02:19.456171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:07.319007
License: Public Domain

Connor, J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority’s opinion in all but one respect.
When acting in the course of their official duties enforcing drug laws, governmental officers and employees are authorized to procure and possess controlled substances. MCL 333.7304; MSA 14.15(7304). They are also authorized to transfer *391controlled substances to any other governmental officers or employees acting in the course of their official duties enforcing drug laws. MCL 333.7304(2); MSA 14.15(7304)(2).
I would hold that, as used in MCL 333.7304; MSA 14.15(7304), the term "employee” includes paid police informants. Defendant Jones is claiming that he was a paid police informant acting in the course of his official duties enforcing drug laws when he handed the cocaine to the undercover officer. If this claim were true, then on the facts of this case, Jones would have been authorized by law to make the transfer he made, MCL 333.7304(2); MSA 14.15(7304)(2), and the delivery would not have violated MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(ii). Thus, I find that his claim is not a simple entrapment claim, but a claim that goes to guilt or innocence. He is not claiming that he committed the crime because his will was overborne. He is claiming that he did not commit a crime. I would hold that the trial court erred when it refused to permit Jones to present that claim to the jury.
However, after reviewing the record, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no rational human being would have believed Jones’ claim. Thus, I find the error harmless.
I concur.