## Facts

- Los Angeles police ran a “reverse” undercover sting in which an officer proposed that Edaleene Sherrie Smith and her associates, Waymond Thomas and Obed Gonzalez, rob a drug dealer of a large quantity of cocaine.
- The officer told Smith the dealer had approximately 85 kilograms of cocaine at a specified location.
- Smith stated stealing cocaine was her “business” and indicated she and her associates would steal whatever quantity was available.
- The defendants went to the location and took steps toward stealing and transporting the cocaine; officers then arrested them.
- A jury convicted all three defendants of, among other offenses, attempted transportation of cocaine (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a)).
- The jury also found true that the quantity of cocaine involved exceeded 80 kilograms, triggering a 25-year enhancement (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11370.4(a)(6)).
- The trial court imposed the 25-year enhancement on each defendant for the transportation count.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but reduced the enhancement to 15 years by treating the case as if it involved a lower quantity tier, based on a “sentencing manipulation” rationale.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal-style doctrine of “sentencing entrapment” (or sentence factor manipulation) provides a basis in California to reduce drug charges or statutory quantity enhancements.
2. Whether a separate due process defense of “outrageous governmental conduct,” beyond California’s entrapment doctrine, applies in California state prosecutions or sentencing.
3. Whether the police selection of an 85-kilogram quantity in a reverse-sting operation required reducing the statutory quantity enhancement from 25 years to 15 years.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s reduction of the enhancement and remanded with directions.
- The Court declined to grant sentencing relief based on “sentencing entrapment” or “sentencing manipulation” on these facts.
- The Court declined to adopt a distinct “outrageous governmental conduct” doctrine as an additional defense beyond California entrapment principles, and found the police conduct not outrageous in any event.
- The Court ordered reinstatement of the 25-year enhancement under Health & Safety Code § 11370.4(a)(6) based on the jury’s true finding that the quantity exceeded 80 kilograms.

## Legal Principles

- “Sentencing entrapment” (as described in federal cases) concerns whether a defendant predisposed to commit a lesser crime was induced into committing a greater, higher-penalty offense; relief requires evidence of predisposition only to the lesser conduct.
- “Sentencing manipulation” focuses on police conduct and would require law-enforcement behavior so outrageous, and undertaken to increase punishment, that it violates due process.
- California entrapment doctrine is conduct-focused and generally addresses claims that police tactics would induce an ordinarily law-abiding person to commit the offense; a separate, free-standing “outrageous conduct” doctrine is not necessary where existing entrapment and due process analysis applies.
- Police discretion in structuring undercover stings, including selecting a quantity that triggers a legislatively defined enhancement, is not constitutionally improper absent coercion or truly egregious conduct.
- When a jury properly finds a statutory drug-quantity allegation true, courts must apply the corresponding enhancement absent a valid legal basis to disregard the legislative penalty scheme.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court reinstated the 25-year drug-quantity enhancement after holding that the defendants’ willingness to steal a large amount of cocaine defeated any claim of sentencing entrapment, that the sting’s 85-kilogram quantity selection was not outrageous or coercive, and that California law did not warrant reducing a legislatively prescribed enhancement on a sentencing-manipulation theory under these facts.


People v. Smith, 31 Cal. 4th 1207 (Cal. 2003)