## Facts

- An undercover Detroit narcotics officer saw that George James Soper’s file was active because Soper had been released from prison less than two months earlier and had a narcotics history.
- The officer and Soper had been childhood friends; the officer went to Soper’s home, renewed their relationship, and discussed childhood experiences.
- The officer then shifted the conversation to drugs, told Soper he was an addict, and asked Soper to obtain heroin for him.
- The officer’s claim of addiction was false and was used to appeal to Soper’s friendship and sympathy.
- Soper initially hesitated and stated he no longer had “connections” and probably could not find heroin.
- After continued requests and a later meeting, Soper provided the officer a tinfoil packet in exchange for $60; testing showed it contained heroin.
- At trial, Soper testified, admitted the delivery, and relied on an entrapment defense; he stated he previously had been a heroin addict, had three prior drug-related convictions, and ended his drug use in prison.
- A jury convicted Soper of unlawful delivery of heroin, and he was sentenced to 5–20 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Michigan’s pre-*People v. Turner* entrapment doctrine, the police conduct constituted entrapment as a matter of law requiring reversal and discharge.
2. Whether the trial court applied an incorrect entrapment standard by instructing under the older subjective approach rather than the objective test later adopted in *People v. Turner*.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered Soper discharged.
- The court held that, applying the pre-*Turner* entrapment framework, the officer’s conduct amounted to entrapment as a matter of law.
- The court did not apply *Turner* retroactively and resolved the case on the pre-*Turner* standard.
- A dissent would have affirmed, concluding the record did not establish entrapment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Entrapment may be found as a matter of law when government conduct abuses enforcement methods by instigating an offense by a person otherwise not engaged in the criminal activity, in order to lure the person into commission and punishment.
- Under pre-*Turner* Michigan law, entrapment analysis focuses on whether the defendant was induced to commit the crime through improper police instigation rather than mere provision of an opportunity.
- Targeting a person based solely on past criminal history, exploiting a personal relationship to create access, and using deception aimed at sympathy may collectively constitute improper inducement sufficient for entrapment as a matter of law.
- Where entrapment is established as a matter of law on the undisputed record, the proper remedy is reversal of the conviction and discharge rather than a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Soper’s heroin-delivery conviction because the police initiated contact based on his past, reactivated a childhood friendship, and used deceptive claims of addiction and repeated requests to induce a transaction Soper initially resisted, amounting to entrapment as a matter of law under the governing pre-*Turner* standard.


People v. Soper, 57 Mich. App. 677, 226 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)