People v. Smith
31 Cal. 4th 1207, 80 P.3d 662, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 559 (2003)
Rule of Law:
California law rejects the defense of 'sentencing entrapment,' which focuses on a defendant's subjective predisposition to commit a lesser crime, because it is incompatible with the state's objective entrapment standard that focuses solely on whether law enforcement's conduct was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.
Facts:
- A reliable informant told undercover narcotics officer Juan Martinez that defendant Edaleene Sherrie Smith was involved in drug trafficking and robbing other drug dealers.
- In a preliminary meeting, the informant told Smith that 200 kilograms of cocaine could be found in a specific home, and Smith expressed excitement about robbing the location.
- Officer Martinez, posing as a co-conspirator, later met with Smith and told her the amount of cocaine involved in their proposed robbery would be between 30 and 100 kilograms.
- Smith assured Martinez she was experienced in such robberies, had a regular crew, and proposed a fee schedule where Martinez's share of the stolen drugs would be a higher percentage for quantities over 50 kilograms.
- In a subsequent conversation, Officer Martinez informed Smith that the target location would have 85 kilograms of cocaine located in a van in the garage.
- Police then placed 85 kilograms of cocaine, obtained from the department's property division, into the van at the designated location.
- Smith arrived with codefendants Waymond Thomas and Obed Gonzalez; while Smith waited in a car, Thomas and Gonzalez entered the garage and began backing the van out.
- Before they could leave, police activated a remote switch to shut off the van's engine and arrested all three defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- Edaleene Sherrie Smith, Waymond Thomas, and Obed Gonzalez were convicted by a jury in a California trial court.
- The jury found true a sentence enhancement allegation that the quantity of cocaine involved exceeded 80 kilograms.
- At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued against the 25-year enhancement based on principles of entrapment.
- The trial court sentenced the defendants, imposing the 25-year enhancement on each.
- The defendants appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, reducing the 25-year enhancement to 15 years on the ground of 'sentencing manipulation.'
- The prosecution petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review, which was granted on limited issues concerning the applicability of federal sentencing defenses.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California law recognize the federal doctrines of 'sentencing entrapment' or 'sentencing manipulation' as defenses to reduce a sentence enhancement based on the quantity of drugs involved in a police sting operation?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. California law does not recognize the defense of sentencing entrapment, and this case does not require the adoption of the defense of sentencing manipulation because the police actions were not overreaching. The doctrine of sentencing entrapment, which focuses on the defendant's subjective predisposition, is fundamentally incompatible with California's objective test for entrapment established in People v. Barraza. The state's test considers only whether the police conduct was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime, making the defendant's character and intent irrelevant. Furthermore, the court declines to adopt the doctrine of sentencing manipulation in this case because the officer's conduct was 'quite unexceptionable.' Smith was an enthusiastic participant who was merely given an opportunity to commit a crime she proclaimed she did for a living, and the quantity of drugs was within the range she had originally discussed without objection. While the court declines to adopt the doctrine, it explicitly rejects the lower standard used by the Court of Appeal, stating that if sentencing manipulation were ever recognized, it would require 'truly outrageous' government conduct.
Concurring - Werdegar, J.
Yes, I concur in the result. However, the majority engages in unnecessary dictum by rejecting the Court of Appeal's standard for sentencing manipulation after having already concluded the police conduct was not overreaching by any standard. This discussion was gratuitous, especially since the court simultaneously declined to decide whether the doctrine of sentencing manipulation applies in California at all. Additionally, the majority should have clarified that the defense of 'outrageous law enforcement conduct' is substantively and procedurally distinct from the entrapment defense. Outrageous conduct is a due process claim decided by a judge as a bar to prosecution, whereas entrapment is a defense to the charge decided by a jury, meaning the two doctrines are not superfluous.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies California's rejection of the federal, subjective-based 'sentencing entrapment' defense, reinforcing the state's commitment to an objective standard that scrutinizes police conduct rather than a defendant's predisposition. While the court leaves the door open to a potential 'sentencing manipulation' defense based on outrageous conduct, it sets an extremely high bar, signaling that 'garden variety' claims of police overreach in sting operations are unlikely to succeed. The ruling provides law enforcement with significant latitude in structuring sting operations, including determining the quantity of contraband, as long as their conduct would not induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Smith (2003)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"