State v. Foster, 235 N.C. App. 365

Defendant Brandon M. Foster, a male dancer at Chasers strip club, was arrested after an undercover CMPD officer (Wishon) obtained cocaine from a third party via Foster and paid $185; Foster was charged with delivery of cocaine and convicted by a jury.
Foster filed timely notice (8+ months before trial) that he intended to assert entrapment, alleging Officer Wishon induced him to obtain cocaine by feigning romantic interest.
At trial Foster testified Wishon flirted, asked personal questions, obtained Foster’s phone number, hugged him, and repeatedly sought drugs; Foster said he helped to impress Wishon and was not predisposed to deal drugs.
The trial court declined to instruct the jury on entrapment, stating (1) insufficient evidence and (2) as a sanction for Foster’s allegedly inadequate statutory notice under N.C. Gen. Stat. §15A‑905(c)(1)(b).
The Court of Appeals held Foster’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to him, raised a jury question on entrapment and that precluding the defense as a sanction—without required findings or showing of prejudice—was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	State's Argument	Foster's Argument	Held
Whether defendant presented sufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on entrapment	Evidence showed only opportunity; Foster wasn’t entrapped and was predisposed	Officer Wishon induced Foster through romantic/ emotional manipulation; Foster lacked predisposition	Court: Evidence sufficient to create a factual issue for the jury; instruction should have been given
Whether precluding the entrapment defense was an appropriate sanction for allegedly insufficient notice under §15A‑905(c)(1)(b)	Trial court discretion to sanction for inadequate notice; denying instruction justified	Foster gave timely notice 8+ months prior; State suffered no shown prejudice; court made no statutory findings	Court: Preclusion was a harsh sanction imposed without required findings or demonstrated prejudice; abuse of discretion; new trial required

State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19 (N.C. 1975) (undercover officer’s false befriending and repeated requests established entrapment as a matter of law)
State v. Branham, 153 N.C. App. 91 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (defendant’s testimony that informant persistently pushed him raised fact question on entrapment)
State v. Jamerson, 64 N.C. App. 301 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983) (repeated inducement and provision of money by officers supported entrapment instruction)
State v. Hageman, 307 N.C. 1 (N.C. 1982) (mere provision of opportunity by police is not entrapment)
State v. Thompson, 141 N.C. App. 698 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (framework for evaluating entrapment and predisposition)
State v. Martin, 77 N.C. App. 61 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985) (acts of persuasion, trickery, or fraud by officers required to support entrapment)
State v. McDonald, 191 N.C. App. 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (sanctions for inadequate notice should be tailored to the prejudice to the State)
State v. Cooper, 747 S.E.2d 398 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (exclusionary sanctions can implicate the defendant’s constitutional rights; courts must weigh Taylor factors and avoid disproportionate sanctions)
State v. Dorman, 737 S.E.2d 452 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (extreme sanctions like dismissal require specific findings of prejudice)