{
  "id": 4220831,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFRY ALLEN THOMAS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thomas",
  "decision_date": "2013-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA12-979",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "227 N.C. App. 170"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "246 S.E.2d 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "750",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 N.C. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564751
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "513",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/295/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "735 S.E.2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2012,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "398"
        },
        {
          "page": "398"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "596 S.E.2d 854",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "858",
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "858",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N.C. App. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8900067
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "662",
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/164/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S.E.2d 589",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "594",
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564626
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "27",
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "523 S.E.2d 448",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "453",
          "parenthetical": "noting that where the defendant failed to request an entrapment instruction at trial, he must show the trial court's failure to so instruct amounted to plain error"
        },
        {
          "page": "454",
          "parenthetical": "citation, quotations, and emphasis omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11238372
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "88",
          "parenthetical": "noting that where the defendant failed to request an entrapment instruction at trial, he must show the trial court's failure to so instruct amounted to plain error"
        },
        {
          "page": "89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/136/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "723 S.E.2d 326",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2012,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "333",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 552,
    "char_count": 11192,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.729,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41284356732767047
    },
    "sha256": "8f80bdb94f6815fc0f1ae9a6039382c69c790a5916472249d3139748c7201ff5",
    "simhash": "1:872e6248969f986f",
    "word_count": 1833
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:48:13.495142+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ELMORE and ERVIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFRY ALLEN THOMAS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nWhere the record fails to indicate that law enforcement officers utilized acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud to induce defendant to commit a crime, or that the criminal design originated in the minds of law enforcement, rather than with defendant, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the theory of entrapment.\nDefendant Jeffry Allen Thomas was indicted on charges of trafficking in opium or heroin by possession, trafficking in opium or heroin by transportation, and felonious possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance. On 10 January 2012, in Rowan County Superior Court, a jury trial was commenced before the Honorable Anna Mills Wagoner,-Judge presiding.\nThe evidence presented tended to show that defendant was a retail store manager who began taking prescription pain pills provided to him by one of the store employees, Stephanie Griggs. Defendant testified that over a nine month period Griggs provided him with 100 pills. On the morning of 4 August 2010, Griggs called defendant, stating that she had access to pain medication containing hydrocodone and asking if he was interested in making a purchase. Defendant requested between ten and twenty pills. The two agreed to meet in the parking lot of a local grocery store. Prior to the exchange, Griggs met with officers in the Rowan County Sheriffs Department. An officer provided Griggs with fourteen pills containing hydrocodone, an opiate derivative and schedule. Ill controlled substance. Griggs then met with defendant and -exchanged the fourteen pills for eighty dollars. Defendant was arrested upon exiting the grocery store parking lot.\nFollowing the close of the evidence, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the charges of trafficking in opium or heroin by possession, trafficking in opium or heroin by transportation and guilty of possession of hydrocodone. The trial court arrested judgment on the charge of possession of hydrocodone and entered judgment on the remaining charges. Defendant was sentenced to an active term of seventy to eighty-four months. Defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant raises only one issue: whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. Defendant acknowledges on appeal that he did not request that the trial court instruct the jury on entrapment; however, he argues that in the light most favorable to him, the evidence in this case gives rise to an entrapment defense because: (1) the offer for defendant to purchase pain medication originated with law enforcement; (2) law enforcement officers determined that hydrocodone would be the narcotic defendant received; and (3) the pills law enforcement officers found in defendant\u2019s vehicle were left there despite defendant\u2019s rejection of the offer to purchase the pills. Defendant seeks a new trial, contending that the failure to instruct the jury on entrapment amounts to plain error. We disagree.\n[T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done, or where the error is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused, or the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial or where the error is such as to seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings or where it can be fairly said the instructional mistake had a probable impact on the jury\u2019s finding that the defendant was guilty.\nState v. Lawrence, _ N.C. _, _, 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (citation omitted); see also, State v. Broome, 136 N.C. App. 82, 88, 523 S.E.2d 448, 453 (1999) (noting that where the defendant failed to request an entrapment instruction at trial, he must show the trial court\u2019s failure to so instruct amounted to plain error).\n\u201cEntrapment is the inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated by him, for the mere purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution against him.\u201d State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 27, 215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) (citation and quotations omitted). \u201cTo be entitled to an instruction on entrapment, the defendant must produce some credible evidence tending to support the defendant\u2019s contention that he was a victim of entrapment, as that term is known to the law.\u201d State v. Redmon, 164 N.C. App. 658, 662, 596 S.E.2d 854, 858 (2004) (citation and quotations omitted). The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant. Id. at 663, 596 S.E.2d at 858 (citation omitted).\nThe entrapment defense consists of two elements: (1) acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or their agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime, [and] (2) when the criminal design originated in the minds of the government officials, rather than with the innocent defendant, such that the crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement authorities.\nState v. Reid, _ N.C. App. _, _, 735 S.E.2d 389, 398 (2012).\nLaw enforcement may rightfully furnish to the players of [the drug] trade opportunity to commit the crime in order that they may be apprehended. It is only when a person is induced by the officer to commit a crime which he did not contemplate that we must draw the line.\nBroome, 136 N.C. App. at 89, 523 S.E.2d at 454 (citation, quotations, and emphasis omitted).\nIn the absence of evidence tending to show both inducement by government agents and that the intention to commit the crime originated not in the mind of the defendant, but with the law enforcement officers, the question of entrapment has not been sufficiently raised to permit its submission to the jury.\nState v. Walker, 295 N.C. 510, 513, 246 S.E.2d 748, 750 (1978) (citations omitted).\nHere, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, it is insufficient to support defendant\u2019s entrapment claim. Defendant testified that during the nine months prior to the day of his arrest, Griggs had provided him with prescription pain pills referred to as \u201cNorcos\u201d or \u201ctens\u201d to help him manage pain from an aggravated injury. Defendant further testified that on the morning of 4 August 2010, he received a phone call from Griggs. Griggs indicated to him that she had access to pills. Defendant wanted to purchase between ten and twenty pills and agreed to meet Griggs in the grocery store parking lot in order to purchase the pills.\nDefendant then met Griggs in the grocery store parking lot and Griggs entered his vehicle. Defendant gave her eighty dollars and received fourteen pills. The fourteen pills were within the range of the ten to twenty pills defendant had requested.\nDefendant testified that while in his vehicle, he noted that the pills he was given were not the type of pills that Griggs had previously provided him. Defendant farther testified that he handed the pills back to Griggs; that Griggs refused to refund the money; and that instead, Griggs leaned over and hugged defendant before exiting the vehicle. Defendant testified that he believed that Griggs kept both the pills and the money when she exited the vehicle.\nOfficers of the Rowan County Sheriffs Department stopped defendant as he left the parking lot. An initial search of defendant and his car yielded no pills. However, during a second search of defendant\u2019s car while preparing to remove the driver\u2019s seat from the vehicle, a detective noticed a bulge in the seat. Upon removing the cushion on the driver\u2019s seat, the officer observed a plastic bag with fourteen pills.\nGriggs testified as a witness for the State. Prior to the morning of 4 August 2010, Griggs had been approached by Detective K.L. Meyers with the Rowan County Sheriff\u2019s Department who asked if she would help \u201cget [defendant] caught with pills.\u201d On the morning of 4 August 2010, she made a recorded phone call to defendant in the presence of Det. Meyers. Griggs asked defendant \u201cif he wanted hydrocodone[,]\u201d and the two agreed to meet. Det. Meyers provided Griggs with fourteen oblong pills marked M357. A chemical analysis performed later determined that the pills weighed 9.0 grams and contained dihydrocodone / hydrocodone - a narcotic, an opiate derivative, and a schedule III controlled substance. At trial, a witness testifying as an expert in forensic chemistry stated that the markings, M357, on the pills indicated that they were a generic form of Vicodin, containing hydrocodone acetaminophen.\nDefendant contends that the plan for him to buy prescription pain medication originated with law enforcement and that he was not predisposed to commit the crime of trafficking in opiates. Defendant also contends that he lacked any knowledge he was in possession of the pills Griggs offered him and that on these bases, he was entitled to an instruction on entrapment.\nBy his own admission defendant had acquired pills for pain from Griggs over a nine month period. Then on 4 August, when Griggs asked defendant if he was interested in purchasing pain pills with hydrocodone, defendant requested at least ten to twenty pills and agreed to meet Griggs that same day. Viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, the record shows that defendant had obtained pain pills many times before law enforcement became involved; that on 4 August, law enforcement afforded defendant an opportunity to acquire pain pills, that defendant did in fact acquire the pills and that they were pain pills, albeit not the same type as those defendant had obtained before. On this record, defendant has failed to produce credible evidence that he was induced by persuasion, trickery or fraud to commit a crime he otherwise had no intention of committing. See Reid, _ N.C. App. at _, 735 S.E.2d at 398. In fact, much of this evidence, including defendant\u2019s obtaining 100 pills from Griggs over a period of several months shows a predisposition to commit the offense of possession of a controlled substance. As the contentions brought forth on appeal do not illustrate circumstances that would entitle defendant to an instruction on entrapment, we hold that the trial court did not err in failing to so instruct the juiy. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s arguments are overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges ELMORE and ERVIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Carole Biggers, for the State.",
      "Guy J. Lorangerfor defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFRY ALLEN THOMAS\nNo. COA12-979\nFiled 7 May 2013\nCriminal Law \u2014 jury instruction \u2014 entrapment\nThe trial court did not err in a drugs case by failing to instruct the jury on the theory of entrapment. The record failed to indicate that law enforcement officers utilized acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud to induce defendant to commit a crime, or that the criminal design originated in the minds of law enforcement, rather than with defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 January 2012 by Judge Anna Mills Wagoner in Rowan County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 February 2013.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Carole Biggers, for the State.\nGuy J. Lorangerfor defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 180,
  "last_page_order": 185
}
