Court Opinion

ID: 9682626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:14:58.121191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.496946
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial for the reasons set out in the majority opinion. Robbins (either a policeman or an informant) persuaded appellant to get him (Robbins) some marijuana. Obviously Robbins was an assumed name and he was probably living at the taxpayers’ expense. Whomever or whatever he was, he was a party to the transaction set up by him. He was an essential witness to the defense. The defense tried in vain to locate Robbins. The state refused to help. It is likely the state knew where Robbins was and what his real name was. There is a good chance that if Robbins had appeared as a witness and told the truth he would have proven appellant’s defense of entrapment. Were we merely joking in Spears v. State, 264 Ark. 83, 568 S.W.2d 498 (1978)? The majority opinion sets the stage for unknown persons to entrap people who would not otherwise violate our laws. I think I detect a goosestep in our cadence.