{ "id": 8548811, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY BOOKER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Booker", "decision_date": "1977-05-04", "docket_number": "No. 7615SC864", "first_page": "223", "last_page": "225", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "33 N.C. App. 223" } ], "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": "208 S.E. 2d 656", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 708", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569743 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0708-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550523 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.Ct. 1589", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 L.Ed. 2d 887", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "415 U.S. 990", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6351332, 6351181, 6350352, 6350963, 6351572, 6350517, 6350739, 6351764, 6350107, 6351964 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/415/0990-07", "/us/415/0990-06", "/us/415/0990-02", "/us/415/0990-05", "/us/415/0990-08", "/us/415/0990-03", "/us/415/0990-04", "/us/415/0990-09", "/us/415/0990-01", "/us/415/0990-10" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561560, 8561521, 8561537, 8561595 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0258-03", "/nc/284/0258-01", "/nc/284/0258-02", "/nc/284/0258-04" ] }, { "cite": "198 S.E. 2d 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553515 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 S.E. 2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611419 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0164-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 5423, "ocr_confidence": 0.673, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3925453915157295e-07, "percentile": 0.6430903886674474 }, "sha256": "8a5a71d85e533d198237e16e7a6a188b1a9c4f7b8025678d3f815e0c13d4612e", "simhash": "1:07482e8a353d00fa", "word_count": 908 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:28.190456+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY BOOKER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error relates to the exclusion of certain testimony relating to the manner in which the undercover agent in this case had conducted himself in other similar drug arrests. Since the answers to the questions were not preserved for the record, we are unable to say whether the exclusion of the evidence is prejudicial. 4 Strong, N. C. Index 3d, Criminal Law \u00a7 169.6 (1976). Furthermore, a careful examination of each exception upon which this assignment of error is based reveals that each question called for irrelevant testimony.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error relate to the trial judge\u2019s instructions to the jury on the defense of entrapment and his failure to dismiss the action because the defense of entrapment was established as a matter of law.\nEntrapment with respect to a particular crime exists when the intent to commit that crime originates from the inducement of a law enforcement officer or his agent, and the defendant would not have committed the crime but for such inducement. State v. Burnette, 242 N.C. 164, 87 S.E. 2d 191 (1955); State v. Stanback, 19 N.C. App. 375, 198 S.E. 2d 759 (1973); cert. denied, 284 N.C. 258, 200 S.E. 2d 658 (1973); cert. denied, 415 U.S. 990, 39 L.Ed. 2d 887, 94 S.Ct. 1589 (1974). However there is no entrapment when the officer merely affords the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime. State v. Stanback, supra; State v. Hendrix, 19 N.C. App. 99, 197 S.E. 2d 892 (1973).\n\u201cMere initiation, instigation, invitation, or exposure to temptation by enforcement officers is not sufficient to establish the defense of entrapment, it being necessary that the defendants would not have committed the offense except for misrepresentation, trickery, persuasion, or fraud.\u201d\n4 Strong, N. C. Index 3d, Criminal Law \u00a7 7, p. 45 (1976).\nThe evidence of the defendant in the present case, in our opinion, is not sufficient to raise an issue of entrapment. The evidence at most shows that the officer afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the offenses. The fact that the officer provided the money to purchase the drugs and loaned defendant his car to go get the drugs is not sufficient evidence to show inducement on the part of the officer. The court\u2019s instructions with respect to entrapment, therefore, were mere surplusage and could have in no way prejudiced the defendant. State v. Rigsbee, 285 N.C. 708, 208 S.E. 2d 656 (1974).\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Jesse C. Brake for the State.", "Allen, Allen, Walker & Washburn by Kent Washburn for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY BOOKER\nNo. 7615SC864\n(Filed 4 May 1977)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 7.1\u2014 entrapment \u2014 insufficiency of evidence \u2014 instructions surplusage\nIn a prosecution for possession of marijuana for the purpose of sale and sale of marijuana, evidence was insufficient to raise an issue of entrapment where it showed at most that an officer afforded defendant the opportunity to commit the offenses charged in that the officer provided the money to purchase the drugs and loaned defendant his ear to get the drugs; therefore, the trial court\u2019s instructions with respect to entrapment were mere surplusage and could have in no way prejudiced the defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 20 May 1976 in Superior Court, Alamance County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 April 1977.\nDefendant, Billy Booker, was charged in a two-count bill of indictment, proper in form, with the felonious possession of marijuana for the purpose of sale and delivery and with the sale of marijuana to State ABC Officer, J. W. Leonard. Upon the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty the State offered evidence tending to show the following:\nOn 31 January 1976 State ABC Officer, J. W. Leonard, and Ivan Chatman went to defendant\u2019s house in Burlington, North Carolina, where Leonard asked defendant if defendant could sell him some heroin and marijuana. Defendant stated that he knew where he could get some marijuana. Defendant directed Officer Leonard to give him $20 and told him that he would return in 15 to 20 minutes. Defendant returned 15 to 20 minutes later and gave Leonard a clear plastic bag containing marijuana and two tablets of Phencyclidine along with two dollars\u2019 change.\nDefendant offered evidence tending to show the following:\nOn 31 January 1976 Leonard and Chatman, whom defendant did not know, came to his house and Leonard asked him if he could get him some marijuana. Defendant stated that he did not know because the town was \u201cpretty dry.\u201d Leonard kept insisting that he needed some drugs, and defendant \u201ckept telling him that he did not know where any was because the town was pretty dry and he had been all over town trying to find some himself\u201d for his personal use. Leonard stated he needed some because he just got out of jail and his mother had just died. Chatman stated that he was a junkie and needed some heroin or something. After they talked for 15 to 20 minutes, defendant finally agreed to try to find some of the drugs Leonard and Chatman wanted. Leonard gave defendant $20 to cover the purchase and loaned defendant his car. Defendant returned later with the drugs. Defendant had not ever sold any drugs before 31 January 1976.\nDefendant was found guilty as charged and from a judgment imposing a prison sentence of five years, he appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Jesse C. Brake for the State.\nAllen, Allen, Walker & Washburn by Kent Washburn for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0223-01", "first_page_order": 251, "last_page_order": 253 }