People v. Arthurlee
168 Cal. App. 3d 246, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2089, 214 Cal. Rptr. 5 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California law, the proper test for entrapment is an objective one that focuses on whether the conduct of law enforcement was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. Jury instructions that use the 'normally law-abiding person' standard correctly state this test and focus on the officer's conduct rather than the defendant's predisposition.
Facts:
- In July 1983, undercover San Francisco Police Officer Judy Twine conducted a narcotics investigation at a car wash owned by Carmen Joseph Arthurlee.
- On July 13, Twine asked an employee for drugs and was told to return when the boss, Arthurlee, was present.
- After returning on July 15 and being told Arthurlee was out of town, Twine came back on July 18.
- On July 18, Arthurlee offered to sell Twine a half-gram of cocaine, which she purchased for $60.
- On July 21, Twine returned and asked Arthurlee to 'fix her up again,' and he sold her another bindle of cocaine for $60.
- At trial, Arthurlee testified that Officer Twine had acted in a seductive manner towards him, touching his ears and complimenting his appearance to induce the sales.
- Officer Twine denied any seductive behavior, testifying that her relationship with Arthurlee was 'strictly financial.'
Procedural Posture:
- Carmen Joseph Arthurlee was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of San Francisco County on multiple drug charges.
- The jury found Arthurlee guilty on two counts of selling cocaine and not guilty on charges of possession of cocaine and marijuana.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction based on the jury's verdict.
- Arthurlee (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court gave the jury erroneous instructions on the defense of entrapment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the standard CALJIC jury instructions on entrapment, which use the 'normally law-abiding person' standard, accurately state California's objective test for entrapment as established in People v. Barraza?
Opinions:
Majority - White, P. J.
Yes. The standard CALJIC jury instructions on entrapment, which are based on the 'normally law-abiding person' standard, accurately reflect California's objective test for entrapment established in People v. Barraza. The court reasoned that these instructions correctly focus the jury's attention on the objective nature of the police conduct and its likely effect on a hypothetical person, rather than on the subjective character or predisposition of the specific defendant. The court expressly rejected the contrary holding in People v. Martinez, which found the instructions faulty. By adhering to the language used in Barraza and subsequent cases, the court found the instructions make clear that the test is objective, not subjective, and thus were not erroneous.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the validity of California's standard jury instructions on the objective test for entrapment, solidifying the 'normally law-abiding person' standard. It creates a split of authority with the First District's decision in People v. Martinez, which had criticized the same instructions for improperly focusing on the defendant's character. By upholding the instructions, this court provides clarity for trial courts and reinforces that the focus of the entrapment defense in California must remain on the police conduct, not the defendant's predisposition, until the state Supreme Court rules otherwise. The opinion also notes the open question of whether Proposition 8 might require California to adopt the less stringent, subjective federal standard for entrapment in the future.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Arthurlee