Court Opinion

ID: 9728664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:13:34.956842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.775496
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I appreciate the distinction between objective and subjective tests and I agree with Justice Sand that it would be better if *292we would use more descriptive words when speaking or writing about entrapment. The conduct of the police in this case, in any event, should not be encouraged. Although I agree with most of the majority opinion, I do not agree that a new trial should be granted.
Here, as in State v. Pfister, 264 N.W.2d 694, 700 (N.D.1978), where I dissented, I see no likelihood that a retrial will change the result. That leads me to conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Rule 52(a), NDRCivP. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). An error of constitutional proportions is not involved in this case. If it were, the convictions should be set aside and the charges dismissed.
If the trial judge had used the precise, correct words from § 12.1-05-11(2), NDCC, and had not stated that the defendants were predisposed, the results would not have been different. A normal law-abiding person could not be persuaded by an offer of $150 to do what these defendants did. That is what the judge was saying. There is no reason to further demonstrate the harmlessness of the error.