*1 Gary JANSKI, Appellant (Defendant below), Wyoming, Appellee
STATE of (Plaintiff below). No. 4348. E. Ackerman and Ronald L. John Supreme Wyoming. Cоurt of Brown, Casper, appellant. for Dec. 1974. David Kennedy, Gen., Atty. B. David A.
Kern, Atty. Gen., Asst. and Patricia Linen- berger, Legal Intern, Cheyenne, appel- lee.
Before J.,C. and McEWAN and McCLINTOCK, JJ. McEWAN opinion delivered the
of the court. found the defendant delivery of a (mari- controlled substance1 huana) and he was sentenced to a term of years one to three Wyoming in the State Penitentiary. points upon One of which he relied reversal evidence adduced at trial was insufficient entrapment, to overcome defense thereby rendering contrary the verdict the evidence. we reverse оn ground we do not consider the argu- other ments on party whom the defendant deliv- January ered the controlled substanсe on 1973 was Robert who had been em- ployed agent as an narcotic undercover Casper Department. Police He had previously police agencies in worked with Mexico, twelve or more cities in New Col- orаdo, Nebraska, and in the states of Ore- gon and time trial Washington. At the Washing- he was working testi- investigator. ton as a narcotic in as member of fied that he was sworn Casper Department in December Police that he had been 1972. He admitted felonies, viously including convicted of five burglaries, and two two armed robberies Casper po- yet in” he was “sworn officer, badge and two lice furnished a background is recited guns. The of Laabs W.S.1957, Cum.Supp. 35-347.14(d) (a) (ii), (10) and 35-347.31 Sections *2 202 presuma- acquitted must bе by showing that he of the crime commit-
only way of of ted as expertise entrapment. in the field a result of the bly had somе may Although we criminal activities. entrapment “To determine has whether in- making such an question wisdom of the established, beеn a line must be drawn and most essential of a dividual a member trap unwary between the the inno- police a offi- of рrofession honorable cent, trap unwary the and whose —that law enforcement recognize that cer—we сriminal conduct was due his own to in methods resort to unusual officials must planned and himself to readiness who of pursuit violations because of narcotic commit the crime. of crime. very the the nature n n n n n *t» en- relating to the testimony only introduction, you foregoing the “With by and Laabs given trapment question was specifically are then instructed: Doing. Laabs witness Kevin а defense principal “The element of the defense the defendant’s he went to testified that entrapment is prеsence, of the or ab- the defendant merely asked residence and sence, predisposition the defendаnt’s the and that buy some hashish if he could to commit the crime. 30 and returned left the house defendant you “If conclude is therе a reasonable packages of with minutes later two doubt any whether defendant had [sic] him for $80.00. which the defendant рrevious the purpose intent or commit to of the defend- Doing, 17-year-old a friend case, in the offense his and he com- that in present at the time and was ant who participated only mitted or in the offense threatened that Laabs question, testified persuaded because he was induced or to in its a gun. the defendant with police employee police by do so the and testimony of the that brief recited because activity, you acquit then must that [sic] question as to whether fact arose defendant. and forced the defendant threatened “But, person a predisposi- where a has hashish, en- question of the him to sell and tion, willingness the and the to readiness the to trapment properly submitted wаs crime, commit the the mere fact police provide police employee the and opportu- appears what to be a favorable Entrapment Instruction on so, nity entrapment.” is to do not argued The defеndant that was there as to make determination We no nothing upon jury in the record which the en instruction on the corrеctness the could have found the defendant had that to objection no trapment there because “predisposition crime”; the to commit the and State, to and it the the state it did apparently agreed because the the law of state the instruction became point any not have out such We evidence. by this open to review cаse and is not nothing examined the record and find v. Con on Teton court Vinich only touching upon the question. Laabs’ Co., P.2d Wyo., struction testimony point the on was that on Anderson, Western, Inc. Gifford-Hill day question in the went to Wyo., and 88 496 P.2d C.J.S. if he residence and askеd the defendant read 425, p. 1151. The instruction Trial § had could and that he part in as follows: prior known the defendant for weеk previous intent or person “If a has no purchase. nothing in the there was charged, purpose the crime to commit upon jury have could the record en- by law persuaded is or but induced “predisposed found that the defendant was crime, agency to commit forcement crime,” require- to commit the which was a entrapment. he is a victim instruction, the ment under the conviction aside. must be set entrapped, “A has been defendant who respects, in although otherwise all Reversed. In that (dissenting-). is entrap- Chief version there no hint of ment, indeed, believed that to reverse the conviс- I find no occasion immediately upon complied being insufficiency to over- of evidence
tion requested to sell a controlled The tes- entrapment. come the defense this alone was sufficient evidence of person timony of Robert disposition. A conflict of evidence was de- controlled *3 defendant delivered the whom veloped by defendant, and the matter he went was that became for submission to the house and asked him he could States, Sorrells v. United 287 U.S. left and returned 435, 53 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. 86 A. 452? thirty packages minutes with two later Costello, L.R. Cir., United States v. 483 F.2d $80.00.