Court Opinion

ID: 9851768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:19:19.262743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:14.965375
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
concurring:
Although I concur in the result reached by my brethren, I feel impelled to tender two observations of my own.
First, I note that the charges against Shrader were predicated upon allegations of “sale.” It appears clear from the record that Shrader acted, not for himself, but as a “purchasing agent” for Mark Edward Scott in certain of the transactions alleged.1 Hence, *507quite aside from the issue of entrapment, which the majority opinion addresses, it seems to me that the “purchasing agent” defense to these charges was established as a matter of law. See Roy v. State, 87 Nev. 517, 489 P.2d 1158 (1971).
Second, the record reflects that Scott is a person of dubious character. It appears that he has been accustomed to deriving at least part of his livelihood through cheating at licensed gaming establishments. Thus, in this jurisdiction, where a tourist-oriented economy requires Nevada to maintain honest legal gaming, Scott must be deemed a highly undesirable, albeit low-level social predator. At the time Scott decided to purchase his freedom by undertaking to entrap his friends, Scott was in jail, awaiting trial on two felony cheating charges which could have resulted in his imprisonment for a total of 20 years.
By contrast to Scott, it appears that appellant Shrader has no criminal history. It seems he has been honestly and quite regularly employed. While the record indicates that Shrader has been a marijuana user, it does not appear that he ever has been a seller or trafficker for profit. Hence, I am puzzled how our social structure is served when an actual criminal like Scott is released from accountability for his known depredations, in exchange for manufacturing charges against persons like Shrader. It seems to me that Nevada’s costly prison facilities could better be utilized to protect the gaming industry from the likes of Scott.

The following is an excerpt from a verbatim transcript of Scott’s testimony:
Q. Okay. So, it’s your intention that as soon as you bring back the thirty more dollars that he can go and get that narcotics for you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you do bring the thirty dollars?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And he leaves?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. There is no doubt in your mind that he’s going to buy the narcotics strictly for you at your request, is there?
*507A. No.
Q. You gave him a hundred dollars, did you not?
A. Yes.

Q. To buy some narcotics?

A. Yes.
Q. And to leave — and he left?
A. Yes.
Q. As far as you know, he was going to go buy some narcotics for you at your request?
A. Yes.
(Emphasis added.)