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
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to require submitting the entrapment defense to the jury.
- Whether entrapment is a recognized defense in a federal prosecution under the National Prohibition Act.
- 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.