Coppage v. State
2011 ND 227
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Schmidt was convicted after a bench trial of criminal attempt to possess methamphetamine.
- A West Fargo officer, part of a DEA task force, used a confidential informant to arrange a meth sale to Schmidt.
- Schmidt and the informant exchanged messages and planned a meeting at a West Fargo motel for Schmidt to buy one-half ounce of meth.
- At the meeting Schmidt handed the informant $1,200; the informant left with the money and officers arrested Schmidt.
- Schmidt raised the affirmative defense of entrapment; the district court found no entrapment and entered judgment of guilt.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction but remanded to correct a clerical error stating a guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment sufficiency of evidence | State: substantial evidence supports conviction; no entrapment by preponderance. | Schmidt: entrapment proven by preponderance; she was entrapped as a matter of law. | Substantial evidence supports conviction; entrapment not proven as matter of law. |
| Whether entrapment is a question of fact or law given the disputed circumstances | State: entrapment is a factual question for the trier of fact. | Schmidt: entrapment should be decided as a matter of law. | Entrapment is a factual issue; not established as a matter of law given disputed facts. |
| Clerical error in judgment | Remand to correct the clerical error stating a guilty plea instead of bench trial. | ||
| Waiver of sentencing issue under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-06-01(3) | Issue waived; Schmidt did not timely raise the sentencing level issue at trial or sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Corman, 2009 ND 85 (ND) (standard of review for bench trials without a jury)
- State v. Nehring, 509 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1993) (sufficiency of evidence in entrapment context)
- State v. Johnson, 425 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1988) (entrapment standards and defense considerations)
- Hammeren, 2003 ND 6 (ND) (entrapment is generally a factual question; outrageous conduct not required)
- Baumgartner, 2001 ND 202 (ND) (entrapment review framework; factual disputes)
- Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 1995) (standard for evaluating entrapment on appeal)
- Hoverson, 2006 ND 49 (ND) (outrageous government conduct due-process consideration)