JAMES FREDERICK BRAININ, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's conviction for sale and concealment of narcotic drugs should be affirmed because the evidence did not support a claim of entrapment as a matter of law.
The appellant was convicted of selling and concealing narcotic drugs. He argued on appeal that he was entrapped into committing the offense and that t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Narcotics Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, represented below by counsel of his own selection, was convicted of the sale and concealment of narcotic drugs in violation of federal statutes. Here, appearing by court appointed counsel, he makes only one contention. That is that, as matter of law, he was entrapped into committing the offense, and the district judge, therefore, erred in not directing a verdict for defendant.
We think it clear that there is no basis in the record for this claim of error. No request for such an instruction, indeed for any instruction, on the issue was made below. Moreover, the testimony is such that it would not support such an instruction if a request had been made. There is evidence that the sale was made to a government informer as a result of a plan of federal officers to offer appellant an opportunity to make the sale, but there is no evidence that the defendant was entrapped, that is was induced or persuaded to make such sale, indeed there was abundant evidence that he was not, but that he was a ready and willing violator of the narcotics laws and that the action of the government agent merely furnishes him, a willing seller, an opportunity to make the sale.
Under the circumstances shown in this record, there is no basis for an instruction that the defendant was entrapped. The evidence does not bring the case within the doctrine of United States v. Sherman, 2 Cir., 1952, 200 F. 2d 880. See also, Suarez v. United States, 5th Cir., 309 F. 2d 709; Rodriguez v. United States, 5th Cir., 227 F. 2d 912; United States v. Place, 2nd Cir., 263 F. 2d 627; Masciale v. United States, 356 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859.
The judgment is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierce v. United States, 414 F.2d 163 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
United States v. Marcello, 423 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Kibby v. United States, 372 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1967)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Masciale v. United States, 356 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1958)
- United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1952)
- Purification Rodriguez v. United States, 227 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1955)
- Suarez v. United States, 309 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1962)
- United States v. Place, 263 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1959)