Court Opinion

ID: 9685380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:35:25.878407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:05.304038
License: Public Domain

*203CATES, Presiding Judge
(concurring specially).
I
I am concurring specially because I think that the role of undercover agents and informers requires a bit more amplification.
Here the agents themselves committed a breach of the Act, i. e., they smoked marihuana. This, of course, the jury could view as a ruse to disarm Hall. Hall apparently exhibited a predisposition to sell this contraband. If so, he was not entrapped. See Lindsay v. State, 41 Ala.App. 85, 125 So.2d 716.
When, however, a crime originates in the mind of the informer, or undercover agent, the court is confronted with a more difficult situation. Secretary Stimson disapproved of peacetime espionage saying, “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” Many feel the same way about entrapment.
Secretive crimes in particular require sophisticated modes of detection and hopefully, prevention. Traps and snares for the wicked enjoy universal acclaim.
II
As to the severity of the sentence I can only say two things: First, we do not have Hall’s prior record before us and second the Legislature has never given us any authority to review sentences except as to being within statutory limits.
I am aware that a number of recommendations have been made for us, like the English Court of Appeal, to have such power. ABA Standards of Criminal Justice, Appellate Review of Sentences.
Any such change will be illusory unless either the law or rule of court gives explicit and detailed methods, norms and other guidelines, both for the trial judge and the appellate tribunal.