Court Opinion

ID: 9685135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:23:37.338094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.643090
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority opinion that we should not reject the subjective test of entrapment, but I would hold that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that the criminal intent to commit the offense charged originated in the mind of the appellant. It is true that the offense was brought to fruition through the acts of the informant, but that aspect of the entrapment defense was adequately covered by the trial court’s instruction. In addition to the evidence summarized in the majority opinion concerning appellant’s predisposition to commit the crime, the record reveals that after telling the informant that he preferred to keep the hash oil balls, appellant asked the informant how much they would be worth. Moreover, appellant admitted that he had smoked marijuana in the past and that he had grown some marijuana plants at his residence. Appellant accepted payment for the substance and seemed to be familiar with the type of activity involved in the distribution of controlled substances. See State v. Parker, S.D., 263 N.W.2d 679. Accordingly, in keeping with the principles set forth in our decisions and in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366; and Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113, I would hold that the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury.
I am authorized to state that Justice PORTER joins in this dissent.