Soriano v. State
2011 OK CR 9
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Soriano was convicted of four methamphetamine-related offenses in LeFlore County (Counts I–IV) after four controlled purchases; he challenged an entrapment defense and related trial issues on direct appeal.
- The four drug sales were initiated by the government or informant and occurred on Jan. 24, 2008; Feb. 5, 2008; Feb. 25, 2008; and Mar. 18, 2008, with undercover agents involved.
- Soriano admitted, in an unrecorded post-arrest interview, that he had sold meth during the four transactions, but no drugs were found on him at arrest.
- The trial court declined to give entrapment jury instructions, and Soriano preserved the issue for appellate review.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that Soriano was predisposed to commit the crimes and affirmed the judgments and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly refused entrapment instructions | Soriano claimed inducement required entrapment instructions | Soriano contended government inducement created entrapment | No error; predisposition established, entrapment instruction not required |
| Whether sentencing entrapment applied to trafficking counts | Soriano argued he was entrapped into trafficking quantities | State argued no sentencing entrapment | Rejected; predisposition to trafficking shown, no sentencing entrapment |
| Whether an evidentiary harpoon during testimony entitles mistrial | Soriano asserted improper harpoon/harpoon-like remark | State's remark was harmless | Plain error not shown; curative instruction given |
| Whether cross-examining Carreras’ prior felony convictions was improper | Soriano sought to impeach Tucker’s credibility | Ruling did not impair defense; proper limit on impeachment | Ruling proper; no reversible error |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct or misstatement affected trial | Soriano alleged misstatements about lab testing and investigation | Rhetorical comments were not prejudicial | No plain error; trial fair |
Key Cases Cited
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) (entrapment defined as preventing government from creating crime in innocent)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (line between trap for the unwary innocent and unwary criminal)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (government infiltration allowed; focus on predisposition)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (pre-government-contact predisposition essential; sting context)
- Beasley v. State, 282 P.2d 249 (1955) (entrapment jury instruction modification; initial focus on initiator)
- Anderson v. State, 765 P.2d 1232 (1988) (rejection of entrapment instruction where no evidence raising issue)
- McInturff v. State, 554 P.2d 837 (1976) (burden on State to prove lack of entrapment when raised)
- Johnson v. State, 625 P.2d 1270 (1981) (entrapment defense properly not instructed where no evidence)
- Leech v. State, 66 P.3d 990 (2003) (sentencing entrapment recognized in drug context)