Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

04/26/76 PEOPLE v. STANLEY

April 26, 1976

PEOPLE
v.
STANLEY



Appeal from Ingham, Jack W. Warren, J.

Bronson, P. J., and McGregor and R. M. Maher, JJ.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. -- Defenses -- Entrapment.

The defense of entrapment is available where a prosecution is aimed at the sale of contraband originally obtained from a government agent.

2. -- Defenses -- Entrapment -- Police Conduct -- Public Policy.

Michigan courts do not look to the preDisposition of a particular defendant in deciding if there has been entrapment; the inquiry concerns only police conduct and whether the actions of the police were so reprehensible under the circumstances that the court should refuse, as a matter of public policy, to permit a conviction to stand.

3. -- Defenses -- Entrapment -- Informants.

The government after utilizing an informant cannot disown his actions, and if an informant supplies contraband drugs to a defendant who then sells the same drugs to a government agent, the defendant may claim entrapment as a defense to a prosecution for the sale.

4. -- Defenses -- Entrapment -- Question of Law.

The determination of whether a defendant has been entrapped is a question of law for decision by the court, rather than a jury.

5. Drugs and Narcotics -- Informants -- Defenses -- Entrapment -- Remand -- Hearings.

A case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a police informant supplied narcotics to a defendant which the defendant later sold back to the informant and a police officer, thus affording the defendant the defense of entrapment, where the trial court made no findings of fact upon deciding that there had been no entrapment, and the testimony of both the defendant and the informant is contradictory.

6. -- Defenses -- Entrapment -- Burden of Proof -- Presumption of Innocence.

A defendant generally has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the facts constituting the defense of entrapment; placing this burden on the defendant does not contravene the rule that a defendant enjoys the presumption of innocence, because entrapment does not negate the defendant's complicity in the crime charged, nor does it go primarily ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.