Appeals Court -- January 24, 2012
Facts: The Defendant was arrested after selling oxycodone to an undercover detective. On the day before the arrest, a police informant arranged for the detective to meet with and purchase the pills from the Defendant. The Defendant was convicted for trafficking in oxycodone, possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, and simple possession of hydrocodone and marijuana. At trial, the Defendant’s attorney attempted to introduce evidence regarding the prior relationship between the informant and the detective, regarding the informant’s criminal history, and regarding the Defendant’s state of mind, all of which would have amounted to an entrapment defense. The Defendant’s attorney also objected to the detective’s use of a police department scale to demonstrate, at the trial, the weight of the pills taken as a result of the search of the Defendant’s car and home.
Issue 1: Should the trial court have permitted evidence regarding a possible entrapment defense?
Yes. The court found that while the trial judge has great discretion in choosing whether to permit evidence, the threshold for raising an entrapment defense is low. Therefore, the court found that the trial court should have allowed the Defendant’s evidence regarding whether the informant was a government agent with a criminal past and whether the informant pressured and induced the Defendant into making a sale to the detective that he would not otherwise make, and also evidence regarding the Defendant’s state of mind at the time. The court emphasized that whether the evidence was believable was an issue only for the jury.
Issue 2: Were the pills properly weighed during the trial?
No. The court found that while the Detective “zeroed” the scale, he did not calibrate it or show objectively that it would produce accurate results. Further, the court found that there was no evidence the scale had ever been objectively tested to show that its results were accurate, and that at least this minimum level of reassurance was necessary.
Conclusion. The Appeals Court reversed the Defendant’s convictions for trafficking in oxycodone and possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute because the trial court failed to allow the Defendant to present evidence for an entrapment defense and permitted the use of a scale whose accuracy was unverified. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions for possession of hydrocodone and marijuana. (AE)
