Court Opinion

ID: 9521156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:59:04.296889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:41.699639
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: In this case the defendant’s defense was one of entrapment. One who contends entrapment necessarily admits the commission of the underlying acts that constitute the offense; thus, here, strictly speaking, the question was not one of guilt or innocence in the sense of who did it, but, rather, whether the defendant was entrapped into committing the offense. The evidence concerning the threatening telephone call, obviously highly prejudicial, is irrelevant to that issue and does not in my view in any way indicate a consciousness of not being entrapped. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.