Court Opinion

ID: 9740450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:35:54.528274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.331328
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer, dissenting: The evidence on the issue of entrapment in this case is not conflicting, and I think that it establishes that the defendant was entrapped. The police officer, Richard Tracy, testified as follows concerning the meeting at which Unsell introduced him to the defendant: “A. During the course of the conversation I told Mr. Toler I was working for a dentist and this dentist had a son that was a narcotic addict and because of the • new prescription law it was impossible for this dentist to obtain narcotics legally for his son and the son was in need of narcotics, and we were looking for some good stuff, some good heroin, if we could get it off the street at least this occasion because he was in pretty" bad shape; we didn’t think he would live very long. Q. Indicate how much you wanted ? A. I told — we talked about getting a very large amount, possibly three or $4000 worth of narcotics, and at that time I indicated to Toler I would like to buy a sample for approximately $100, and I asked him how much stuff he could get me for $100.” The defendant testified that he and Unsell were close friends, and that Unsell had approached him many times, telling him that he wanted narcotics for a friend who was sick and had only a year to live. On cross-examination, the informer, Unsell, who was • called as a rebuttal witness, testified as follows: “Q. Isn’t it a fact you told the defendant, Willie Toler here, you had a customer who needed some narcotics badly because he was ill and had about a year to live ? A. Not customer, No. Q. Did you tell him anyone ? A. Yes. Q. Whom?” At this point the prosecution objected on the ground that the cross-examination was going beyond the scope of the direct, and the court sustained the objection saying “This is a rebuttal witness.” There is no showing in the record that apart from the two occasions involved in this case the defendant had ever had any transactions with narcotics or that he had any criminal record whatsoever. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that the defense of entrapment was established and that the judgment should be reversed. Mr. Justice Klingbiel concurs in this dissent.