Court Opinion

ID: 9852106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:24:36.229251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:22.595363
License: Public Domain

Brailsford, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully suggest that the opinion of Justice Little-john is inconsistent in holding, on the one hand, that the evidence raised a jury issue as to, the defense of entrapment (“The verdict hinged upon this issue”) ; and, on the other *271hand, in agreeing with the trial judge that there was no evidence that the paid informer Coran acted as agent for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in entrapping appellants. If the latter conclusion is sound, the issue of entrapment should not have been submitted at all, for there is of evidence or entrapment except through the agency of Coran. This sketchy record sho.ws only that Chief Strom, after interviewing Coran and receiving information about a conspiracy to open a safe in South Carolina, paid him $200-.00 and promised him $200.00 more after the arrest of the conspirators, which, inferentially, was to follow commission of the felonious act. If Co,ran gained the money paid and promised by Chief Strom by enticing the appellants to come to South Carolina and commit a crime which they would not otherwise have committed, (which a properly instructed jury would have been fully justified in concluding) the defendants were entitled to acquital on the defense of entrapment. Having used Coran and paid him for his services, the prosecution was affected by his misconduct, in the very matter for which he was engaged, just as it would have been by that of any officer or agent. In my view, the court erred in refusing an instruction which would have enlightened the jury on this theory of the defense.
I would reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial.
Bussey, J., concurs.