People v. Watson
91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822, 990 P.2d 1031, 22 Cal.4th 220 (2000)
Rule of Law:
The defense of entrapment requires evidence that law enforcement's conduct was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit an offense. Merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime to the public at large, without personal pressure or overbearing inducement directed at a particular suspect, does not constitute entrapment.
Facts:
- In March 1997, Bakersfield police officers conducted a vehicle theft 'sting' operation.
- Officers staged a public arrest of a plainclothes officer driving a police-owned Chevrolet Monte Carlo, using a marked patrol car with lights and siren.
- After the staged arrest, police intentionally left the Monte Carlo parked in a lot, unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition.
- The defendant's niece observed the staged arrest and subsequently told the defendant to 'come and take' the car.
- A couple of hours later, the defendant went to the parking lot, entered the Monte Carlo, and drove it away.
- Upon his arrest, the defendant stated he took the vehicle with the intention to 'roll,' or drive it.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with vehicle theft in a California trial court.
- In the first trial, where the jury was instructed on entrapment, the jury could not reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial.
- In the second trial, the court refused to provide an entrapment instruction to the jury.
- The jury in the second trial found the defendant guilty.
- The defendant (as appellant) appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the entrapment instruction should have been given.
- The state (as petitioner) appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted review.
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 a police 'bait car' sting operation, where officers stage an arrest and leave a vehicle unlocked with the keys in the ignition, constitute entrapment by making the commission of the crime so unusually attractive that a normally law-abiding person would be induced to commit it?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
No. A police 'bait car' sting operation does not constitute entrapment because such conduct only provides an opportunity to commit a crime rather than inducing a normally law-abiding person to do so. The objective test for entrapment in California focuses on whether police conduct, such as badgering, cajoling, or making guarantees, would pressure a normally law-abiding person to offend. In this case, the police conduct was not directed at the defendant personally; it was an impersonal opportunity presented to the general public. A normally law-abiding person would resist the temptation to steal a car simply because it is unlocked with the keys inside and detection seems unlikely. Therefore, the sting operation was a permissible police stratagem, and no evidence of entrapment was present.
Concurring - Mosk, J.
No. While the majority's conclusion is sound under existing law, the police conduct is morally questionable. The primary function of law enforcement should be to prevent crime, not to encourage it by deliberately creating an easy opportunity for its commission. Devising techniques that make criminal tasks easier may lead to more arrests, but it will also result in more crime. This type of operation sets a dangerous precedent, and law enforcement agencies should focus on discouraging criminals rather than facilitating their actions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the objective entrapment test in California, particularly concerning police sting operations. It establishes that merely creating a tempting opportunity for crime that is available to the general public does not meet the threshold for entrapment. The ruling gives law enforcement considerable latitude in using 'bait car' and similar decoy tactics, reinforcing that the defense is reserved for cases involving personal, overbearing police conduct directed at a specific individual. Consequently, it narrows the scope of the entrapment defense and makes it more difficult for defendants caught in such stings to successfully argue they were entrapped.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Watson (2000)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"