entrapment defense in Mississippi

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

2000Conversely, only where the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable juror could find for the requesting party on the issue at hand may the trial court deny an instruction on a material issue.” Phillips v. State, 493 So.2d 350, 353-54 (Miss.1986). “[Wjhether the entrapment defense should be submitted to the jury depends upon whether there is credible evidence in the record supporting such a defense.” Avery v. State, 548 So.2d 385, 387 (Miss.1989) (quoting King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 16.

2024Mississippi law makes clear that an entrapment defense cannot be established “if the person was predisposed to commit the offense and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the person with an opportunity to commit the offense.” Id. 1 The entrapment statute codifies what was formerly longstanding precedent that “one who denies the act which constitutes entrapment cannot afterwards claim entrapment as a defense.” Daniels v. State, 422 So. 2d 289, 291 (Miss. 1982), abrogated by Hopson v. State, 625 So. 2d 395 (Miss. 1993).

2005Second, Hopson v. State, 625 So.2d 395, 400 (Miss.1993) abolished the requirement that a defendant must admit the offense charged in order to use an entrapment defense.

2005"This Court has held that an entrapment instruction is not necessary where a defendant was merely `asked to sell the substance and he was caught.'" Walls, 672 So.2d at 1231 (citing Ervin v. State 431 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss.1983)). ¶ 8.

2000The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that an entrapment instruction is not necessary where a defendant was merely “asked to sell the substance and he was caught.” Ervin v. State, 431 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss.1983).

2000Conversely, only where the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable juror could find for the requesting party on the issue at hand may the trial court deny an instruction on a material issue.” Phillips v. State, 493 So.2d 350, 353-54 (Miss.1986). “[Wjhether the entrapment defense should be submitted to the jury depends upon whether there is credible evidence in the record supporting such a defense.” Avery v. State, 548 So.2d 385, 387 (Miss.1989) (quoting King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 16.

1996Avery v. State, 548 So.2d 385, 387 (Miss. 1989) (quoting King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Miss. 1988)). *1231 This Court has held that an entrapment instruction is not necessary where a defendant was merely "asked to sell the substance and he was caught." Ervin v. State, 431 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss. 1983).

2005"This Court has held that an entrapment instruction is not necessary where a defendant was merely `asked to sell the substance and he was caught.'" Walls, 672 So.2d at 1231 (citing Ervin v. State 431 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss.1983)). ¶ 8.

1998This principle was reiterated in Walls v. State, 672 So.2d 1227, 1231 (Miss.1996), where it stated an entrapment instruction is not necessary where a defendant was merely "asked to sell the substance and he was caught." The record clearly reflects this to be the case and the record failed to support a prima facie case of entrapment.

2000Here the test is the reverse of that described in Part III above, "for now the defendant must be given the benefit of all doubts about the evidence." Lee v. State , 469 So.2d 1225 , 1230 (Miss. 1985).

2000See Lee v. State , 469 So.2d at 1229-32 .

2000Phillips v. State, 493 So.2d 350, 354 (Miss.1986) and cases cited therein; Barnes v. State, 493 So.2d 313, 315 (Miss.1986).

2000Phillips v. State , 493 So.2d 350 , 354 (Miss. 1986) and cases cited therein; Barnes v. State , 493 So.2d 313 , 315 (Miss. 1986).

2008Id.

2005Entrapment has been defined as "the act of inducing or leading a person to commit a crime not originally contemplated by him, for the purpose of trapping him for the offense." Hopson v. State, 625 So.2d 395, 399 (Miss.1993) (emphasis added) (citing Phillips v. State, 493 So.2d 350, 354 (Miss.1986); McLemore v. State, 241 Miss. 664, 675 , 125 So.2d 86, 91 (1960)).

1996Moore v. State, 534 So.2d 557, 559 (Miss. 1988).

1992Moore v. State, 534 So. 2d 557, 559 (Miss. 1988).

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

1999"The State's participation can become so offensive that the only appropriate antidote is to discharge the accused, notwithstanding the fact that he may have been predisposed and that this entrapment defense may otherwise fail." Tanner v. State, 566 So.2d 1246, 1250 (Miss.1990)(emphasis added).

1996This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So.2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So.2d 464 , *1232 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment.").

1992This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So. 2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So. 2d 464, 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So. 2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). ¶13.

2024However, in 1993 Hopson “abolish[ed] that requirement,” following a line of federal cases that acknowledge “the entrapment defense was available to a defendant even though he or she denied committing the acts upon which the criminal charge is based.” United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759, 768 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988) (holding “that even if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment”).

2024However, in 1993 Hopson “abolish[ed] that requirement,” following a line of federal cases that acknowledge “the entrapment defense was available to a defendant even though he or she denied committing the acts upon which the criminal charge is based.” United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759, 768 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988) (holding “that even if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment”).

2005In Gamble v. State, 543 So.2d 184 (Miss.1989), the defendant made out a prima facie case of entrapment by testifying that the State's informant, McKee, had actually supplied the marijuana which the defendant was accused of selling to an undercover operative of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. [6] The State was unable to shake the defendant's testimony on cross-examination and "failed to put on the informant McKee nor did it produce any other evidence to rebut the undisputed and uncontradicted entrapment defense." Gamble, 543 So.2d at 184-85 (emphasis added).

1997However, Williams made out a prima facie case of entrapment, and therefore, pursuant to Gamble, supra, he was entitled to an entrapment instruction on the second transaction.

1996This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So.2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So.2d 464 , *1232 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment.").

1992This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So. 2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So. 2d 464, 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So. 2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). ¶13.

1988In Turner, 415 So.2d at 693 , the Court stated that the entrapment doctrine was "not applied as a matter of constitutional right but as a court created limitation on governmental activity." (emphasis added).

1986See, e.g., Ervin v. State, 431 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss. 1983); Turner v. State, 415 So.2d 689, 693 (Miss. 1982); Pace v. State, 407 So.2d 530, 532 (Miss. 1981).

2024However, in 1993 Hopson “abolish[ed] that requirement,” following a line of federal cases that acknowledge “the entrapment defense was available to a defendant even though he or she denied committing the acts upon which the criminal charge is based.” United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759, 768 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988) (holding “that even if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment”).

2024However, in 1993 Hopson “abolish[ed] that requirement,” following a line of federal cases that acknowledge “the entrapment defense was available to a defendant even though he or she denied committing the acts upon which the criminal charge is based.” United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759, 768 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988) (holding “that even if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment”).

2023Our question then is whether there was sufficient evidence in the record that a rational jury might have found for the appellant on the entrapment issue.” Forrester v. State, 971 So. 2d 649, 650-51 (¶4) (Miss.

2018See generally U.S. v. Orr, 622 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 981 (2011). ¶18.

2018See generally U.S. v. Orr, 622 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 981 (2011). ¶18.

2007Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591, 593 (¶ 9) (Miss.1999).

2007Robert, 756 So.2d at 808 (¶ 8).

2007Reiterating that an entrapment defense concedes the factual component of the underlying offense, Robert, 756 So.2d at 808 (¶ 8), there is sufficient evidence that Pittman sold cocaine.

2005See Thornton v. State, 905 So.2d 745 (Miss.Ct.App.2004).

1993Pulliam v. State, 592 So. 2d 24, 26 (Miss. 1991).