Worley v. State

364 S.E.2d 897 (1988)



A distinction must be made between evidence which raises a defense of entrapment and which would require that the jury be charged as to the law of entrapment and the burden of proof thereon, and evidence which, under the standards set out in O.C.G.A. § 17-9-1(a), would demand a finding of entrapment and therefore a directed verdict of acquittal. Thus, a defendant's testimony as to entrapment, even if unrebutted by any other witness to the alleged misconduct, will not entitle him to a directed verdict of acquittal unless that unrebutted testimony, together with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, demands a finding that entrapment occurred.


The county sheriff used his secretary and dispatcher, both eighteen years old, to attempt to buy beer from the defendants. The women were successful in buying beer from two defendants. Before the sales, both defendants asked to see the women’s identification. Despite the identifications showing that the women were only eighteen, the defendants sold them the beer anyway. The defendants contended that they thought the dates on the identifications showed the women were twenty-one. On appeal, the defendants alleged entrapment.


Were the defendants entrapped into committing their crime?


No, the court upheld the trial court’s decision.


The court held that the defendant’s testimony as to entrapment was not sufficient to acquit him. Acquittal was warranted only if the testimony, when considered with all reasonable inferences and deductions, demanded a finding of entrapment.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.