State v. Moore
904 S.W.2d 365, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1122, 1995 WL 351797 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To successfully raise an entrapment defense, a defendant must produce evidence of both improper government inducement to commit the crime and the defendant's own lack of predisposition to engage in such criminal conduct.
Facts:
- Detective Latricia Allen, working undercover, made eye contact with Othel Moore on a city street and stopped her car next to him.
- Allen asked Moore, 'Do you know if anybody’s doing anything,' which Moore understood as a request for drugs.
- Moore responded that he knew where drugs could be found and directed Allen to three different locations.
- While driving, Allen and Moore engaged in flirtatious conversation, during which she called him 'Mr. Santa Fe' and told him to call her 'Cootehie.'
- Moore told Allen that her perceived danger at one location was not a concern, and that he knew other places to find drugs.
- At the third location, Moore confirmed that 'boy' (heroin) was available.
- Allen gave Moore $30, which he used to purchase three capsules of heroin for her.
- Moore later testified that his motivation for assisting Allen was his hope of forming an intimate relationship with her.
Procedural Posture:
- Othel Moore was tried before a jury in a Missouri trial court.
- The jury convicted Moore of sale of a controlled substance, heroin.
- The trial court sentenced Moore to ten years as a prior and persistent drug offender.
- Moore filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which the trial court denied without an evidentiary hearing.
- Moore, as appellant, appealed both his conviction and the denial of his post-conviction motion to the Missouri Court of Appeals, with the State of Missouri as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment when he participates in a drug transaction after an undercover officer engages in flirtatious conversation, but fails to present evidence of his unwillingness to commit the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Karohl, J.
No. A defendant is not entitled to an entrapment instruction without presenting evidence of both improper inducement and a lack of predisposition. The flirtatious conversation by Detective Allen did not constitute improper inducement, as it was a strategic method to prevent suspicion and did not involve direct promises of sex, drugs, or alcohol. More importantly, Moore failed to present any evidence of his unwillingness to commit the crime. His knowledge of drug locations, his understanding of drug slang, and his active participation in the transaction all demonstrated a predisposition to engage in the illegal activity. Moore's claimed motive of seeking an intimate relationship speaks to inducement, not to his unwillingness to commit the crime.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the two-part subjective test for entrapment in Missouri, placing a significant burden on the defendant. It clarifies that standard undercover tactics, including creating a friendly or flirtatious atmosphere, do not rise to the level of improper inducement necessary for the defense. The decision underscores that a defendant's personal motivation, even if influenced by an officer's behavior, cannot substitute for concrete evidence of an unwillingness to commit the crime, especially when other evidence points to the defendant's predisposition.
