Court Opinion

ID: 9737965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:38:40.706092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:02.924758
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
We have reviewed the facts as accurately set forth in Judge Danhof s opinion. We also agree with Judge Danhofs statement of the law of entrapment applicable to those facts. However, after careful consideration of the facts in light of the relevant legal principles, we conclude that defendant Soper was "induced to commit” the crime of delivery of heroin, United States v Russell, 411 US 423, 435; 93 S Ct 1637, 1644; 36 L Ed 2d 366, 375 (1973), because the police conduct in this case constituted entrapment as a matter of law.
*679The only reason the police officer investigated Soper was the latter’s recent release from prison and previous addiction to narcotics. The officer exploited a childhood friendship with Soper to establish personal contact, and then activated his preconceived plan to induce Soper to obtain heroin for him. In order to convince Soper that he had a serious need for heroin, he falsely maintained that he was an addict, again playing on Soper’s friendship and sympathy. At first Soper hesitated, indicating that he no longer had any "connections” and probably could not find any heroin. Only after the officer again approached Soper with the same request was the heroin obtained. We find the tactics utilized in this case repugnant.
We hold that the "processes of detection and enforcement” used here were "abused by the instigation by government officials of an act on the part of persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them to its commission and to punish them”. Sorrells v United States, 287 US 435, 448; 53 S Ct 210, 215; 77 L Ed 413, 420 (1932).
Defendant’s conviction is reversed and he is discharged.
O’Hara, J., concurred.