Court Opinion

ID: 9674291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:26:06.817479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.724962
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Again it is urged that entrapment has been shown as a matter of law. We quote from Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848, which in turn quotes from Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413, as follows:
“The fact the the Government agents merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not constitute entrapment. Entrapment occurs only when the criminal conduct was the product of the creative activity of law-enforcement officials.” See 287 U.S., at 441, 451, 53 S.Ct., at 216.1
In the case at bar the agent did not converse with this appellant except as a member of a group. He encouraged appellant to commit no act.
It was not this agent who handed the cigarettes to the appellant, and was therefore, not the person who caused this appellant to participate in this offense.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

. Aultman v. United States, 289 F. 251 (CA 5th, 1923); See also Obrien v. United States, 51 F.2d 674, 678 (CA 7th, 1931); Neill v. United States, 225 F.2d 174, 178 (CA 8th, 1955); United States v. Thompson, 366 F.2d 167 (CA 6th, 1966); Rogers v. United States, 367 F.2d 998 (CA 8th, 1966).