## Facts

- A federal prohibition agent visited Vaughno Crawford Sorrells’s home while posing as a tourist and was accompanied by local acquaintances who knew Sorrells.
- The agent presented himself as a fellow World War I veteran from the same division and discussed shared war experiences with Sorrells for about 90 minutes.
- During the visit, the agent repeatedly requested liquor.
- The agent testified Sorrells initially said he had no liquor but, after repeated requests, left and returned with a half-gallon of whiskey, which the agent bought for $5.
- Sorrells testified he told the agent several times he did not deal with whiskey and only yielded after persistent requests tied to their shared military service.
- Character witnesses testified to Sorrells’s good reputation and steady employment.
- Sorrells was indicted for possessing and selling whiskey in violation of the National Prohibition Act and raised entrapment at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to require submitting the entrapment defense to the jury.
2. Whether entrapment is a recognized defense in a federal prosecution under the National Prohibition Act.
3. Whether entrapment must be raised by a special plea in bar or may be asserted under a general plea of not guilty.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court recognized entrapment as a defense in federal criminal cases, treating it as a question of statutory construction.
- The Court held entrapment may be raised under a general plea of not guilty and does not require a special plea in bar.
- The Court held the trial court erred by refusing to submit entrapment to the jury because the record contained evidence from which a jury could find government inducement of an otherwise law-abiding person.
- The Court indicated that, once entrapment is fairly in issue, the prosecution must show the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense and that the government merely provided an opportunity.

## Legal Principles

- Federal entrapment doctrine limits application of criminal statutes when government agents originate the criminal design and induce commission by a person not otherwise ready and willing to commit the crime.
- The central distinction is between (a) government inducement creating the offense and (b) government conduct that only affords an opportunity to a predisposed defendant.
- If evidence permits a rational finding of entrapment, the issue is for the jury rather than resolution as a matter of law by the trial court.
- Entrapment is available under a general not-guilty plea; it is not required to be asserted by a special plea in bar.
- A concurring view would focus primarily on the propriety of law-enforcement conduct rather than the defendant’s predisposition, though the Court did not adopt that approach as controlling.

## Conclusion

The Court established entrapment as a federal defense and held that where evidence could support a finding that government agents induced a crime by exploiting repeated requests and personal appeals, the trial court must allow the jury to decide entrapment rather than foreclose the defense as a matter of law.


Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932)