Sorrells v. United States - 287 U.S. 435, 53 S. Ct. 210 (1932)

Rule:

It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises. The appropriate object of this permitted activity, frequently essential to the enforcement of the law, is to reveal the criminal design; to expose the illicit traffic, the prohibited publication, the fraudulent use of the mails, the illegal conspiracy, or other offenses, and thus to disclose the would-be violators of the law. A different question is presented when the criminal design originates with the officials of the government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute

Facts:

Defendant was indicted on two counts for possessing and for selling one-half gallon of whiskey in violation of the National Prohibition Act. He pleaded not guilty and relied on the defense of entrapment. During trial, it was adduced that a prohibition agent posed as a tourist and visited defendant’s home, accompanied by three residents of the county who knew the defendant well. The agent asked defendant if he could get the former some liquor. After the third time the agent asked, defendant left his home and later came back with a half-gallon of liquor. The trial court refused to sustain the defense, denying a motion to direct a verdict in favor of defendant and also refusing to submit the issue of entrapment to the jury. The trial court held that as a matter of law there was no entrapment and defendant was convicted. The court of appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in holding that, as a matter of law, there was no entrapment in the instant case?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed the decision of the lower courts, holding that on the evidence produced, the defense of entrapment was available and that the trial court erred in holding that as a matter of law there was no entrapment and in refusing to submit the issue to the jury. The Court further held that it was not the intention of the Congress in enacting the National Prohibition Act that government officials, in order to enforce the statute, lure otherwise innocent persons to contravene the statute. The Court concluded that it was not forced by the letter of the statute to do violence to its spirit and purpose.