State v. J.D.W.
1995 WL 84159, 1995 Utah App. LEXIS 14, 910 P.2d 1242 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Utah law, entrapment occurs only when a law enforcement officer induces the commission of an offense, creating a substantial risk it would be committed by one not otherwise ready to commit it; merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment, and the 'entrapment per se' rule (where providing drugs for sale automatically constitutes entrapment) is not recognized.
Facts:
- J.D.W., a seventeen-year-old minor, and a friend went to the Layton Hills Mall.
- Officer Dave Wakefield of the Davis Metro Narcotics Strike Force approached J.D.W. and his friend and asked if they were interested in a 'smoke,' making a gesture simulating smoking marijuana.
- Wakefield told them he had marijuana and hashish and invited them outside to look at it, which J.D.W. and his friend did.
- Outside, Wakefield presented J.D.W. with a baggy containing marijuana, which J.D.W. took, separated the buds from the shake, and smelled.
- J.D.W. asked the price of the marijuana, and Wakefield stated it was $35.
- J.D.W. offered a $100 bill and asked if he should get change, but Wakefield made change for him.
- J.D.W. paid Wakefield, received the marijuana and change, and was then arrested for possession of a controlled substance.
Procedural Posture:
- J.D.W. was charged in juvenile court with one count of possession of a controlled substance, a class B misdemeanor.
- J.D.W. filed a motion to dismiss based on a claim of entrapment in the juvenile court (trial court).
- The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on J.D.W.'s motion to dismiss.
- The juvenile court issued a memorandum decision determining that J.D.W. was not entrapped.
- J.D.W. entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to challenge the juvenile court's denial of his motion to dismiss.
- J.D.W. (Appellant) appealed the juvenile court's determination to the Utah Court of Appeals.
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 entrapment, as a matter of law, occur when a minor purchases marijuana from an undercover police officer who merely affords the opportunity for the drug transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Bench
No, J.D.W. was not entrapped as a matter of law because Officer Wakefield's actions merely afforded an opportunity for a drug purchase rather than inducing the commission of an offense. Utah law (Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-303(1)) specifies that entrapment requires a law enforcement officer to induce an offense, creating a substantial risk it would be committed by one not otherwise ready to commit it, while merely providing an opportunity does not suffice. Utah has not adopted an 'entrapment per se' rule, meaning the police providing drugs for sale does not automatically constitute entrapment. The court considers several factors, including the transactions, interaction between the agent and the defendant, and the defendant's response to inducements, but also defers to the fact-finder's determination unless it is erroneous as a matter of law. In this case, Wakefield did not rely on close personal relationships, offer inordinate sums of money or extremely low prices (using market rate), or engage in repeated requests or badgering. J.D.W. responded positively and immediately to the offer. While the trial court expressed discomfort with Wakefield selling drugs to a juvenile in a 'drug-free zone,' officers are statutorily exempt from such provisions when acting within the scope of employment, and it is not the court's prerogative to modify the legislative scheme.
Concurring - Judge Orme
I must reluctantly concur with the majority's judgment affirming the trial court's ruling that J.D.W. was not entrapped, given the clear and controlling Utah case law. However, I share the trial court's deep concern about the incident. The officer's actions—taking marijuana from an evidence room, approaching over one hundred innocent passers-by (many with young children) in a shopping mall (a 'drug-free zone'), none of whom were previously suspected of drug use, and soliciting illegal drug sales—are indefensible. Such conduct, which amounted to trespass, soliciting illegal drug sales, and contributing to the delinquency of minors (but for statutory immunity), carries too great a societal cost to justify the arrest of a single juvenile purchaser. I regret that the current state of the law prevents me from acting further and hope that the Utah Supreme Court will consider adopting a 'per se entrapment' doctrine or an 'outrageous government conduct' defense, or that the Legislature will amend the 'drug-free zone' concept or limit police solicitations to previously suspected individuals. Subjecting the general public to unsolicited offers to buy drugs is an unacceptable police method.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of the entrapment defense in Utah, reinforcing that the state adheres to an objective test focused on police conduct rather than the defendant's predisposition. It firmly rejects the 'entrapment per se' rule, making it difficult for defendants to claim entrapment simply because police provided the illegal substance. The concurring opinion highlights the tension between judicial adherence to statutory law and concerns over police tactics, especially regarding juveniles and 'drug-free zones,' implicitly inviting legislative or higher judicial review of such practices. The decision underscores the high bar for proving entrapment and the deference accorded to trial court factual findings in this context.
