Commonwealth v. Berrigan

9 Citing cases

  1. Batson v. State

    568 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1977)   Cited 7 times
    In Batson, we also took note that entrapment "deals with facts which are in essence collateral to the central inquiry of the guilt or innocence of the accused."

    . . . The issue having appeared, it becomes the prosecution's burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not entrapped into the commission of the offense. Illustrative of state judicial authority which has been cited to us by appellants is Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 343 A.2d 355 (1975). There Judge Hoffman said:

  2. Com. v. Thompson

    335 Pa. Super. 332 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)   Cited 15 times
    In Thompson we stated that once "the defense of entrapment has been properly established the trial court should determine the question as a matter of law wherever there is no dispute as to the operative facts relating to the defense."

    While the judicial focus in entrapment cases had changed, the case law has been consistent in Pennsylvania in holding that the determination of whether police conduct constitutes entrapment is for the jury, unless the evidence of police conduct clearly establishes entrapment as a matter of law. Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 373-374, 343 A.2d 355, 357 (1975) (divided court) (applying subjective test); Commonwealth v. Manley, supra, 252 Pa.Super. at 87, 380 A.2d at 1294 (applying objective test). Thus, after the defense of entrapment has been properly raised, the trial court should determine the question as a matter of law wherever there is no dispute as to the operative facts relating to the defense.

  3. Com. v. Ferguson

    432 A.2d 1103 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    The determination of whether particular police conduct constitutes entrapment is to be made by the jury, unless the evidence clearly establishes entrapment as a matter of law. Commonwealth v. Manley, supra; Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 343 A.2d 355 (1975). In order to successfully invoke the defense, the defendant must prove "by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment."

  4. Com. v. Wright

    396 Pa. Super. 276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 17 times
    In Wright, our Court found that the evidence established entrapment as a matter of law. Consequently, we held that the trial court committed an error of law in submitting the issue of whether defendant was entrapped to the jury.

    Moreover, where there is conflicting testimony on the subject of inducement, the matter is properly left for the jury to resolve. Commonwealth v.Cameron, 247 Pa. Super. 435, 441, 372 A.2d 904, 907 (1977); seealso Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 343 A.2d 355 (1975). Our review of the case law addressing entrapment as a matter of law leads us to conclude that based on an application of the objective test, the evidence admits of only one conclusion — that Wright was entrapped.

  5. Com. v. Lindenmuth

    381 Pa. Super. 398 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Stating rule that defendant enticed by third party cannot raise entrapment defense where inducing party acted as private citizen and not as government agent

    First, any police conduct in this case was directed toward Brown, not appellants. Second, we do not find the police conduct in this case to be overly intrusive or to have induced appellants to commit a crime that otherwise would not have occurred. Compare: Commonwealth v. Thompson, 335 Pa. Super. 332, 484 A.2d 159 (1984), in which a pretty blond "enticed" defendant, a police officer, over a ten month period to provide some marijuana to her; Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 343 A.2d 355 (1975), in which a woman, new to town and an undercover agent, convinced the defendant, in order to earn her gratitude, to obtain some marijuana for her. Instantly, unlike these cases, appellants were not unduly swayed to commit a crime by police. Our courts have recognized that drug dealing is a difficult crime to prosecute and police can use artifice and stratagem to detect criminal activity.

  6. Commonwealth v. Clawson

    250 Pa. Super. 422 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)   Cited 13 times
    In Commonwealth v. Clawson, 250 Pa. Super. 422, 378 A.2d 1008 (1977) (plurality opinion by Spaeth, J.) this court held that the lower court erred in failing to instruct the jury on entrapment. If the jury had been so instructed then it may have found that evidence of no previous drug trafficking and the lack of a profit motive supported a defense of entrapment.

    See the Comment to the Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft No. 9 at 14-24, for a discussion of the evolution of this language and of the law of entrapment. In Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 375-382, 343 A.2d 355, 360 (1975) (Opinion in Support of Reversal) allocaturrefused, Judge HOFFMAN quoted the following formulations of the entrapment rule. "This rule requires, before the defense becomes available, (1) a defendant not disposed to commit the crime, and also (2) police conduct likely to entrap the innocently disposed." Commonwealth v. Conway, 196 Pa. Super. 97, 104, 173 A.2d 776, 780 (1961).

  7. Com. v. Cameron

    247 Pa. Super. 435 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)   Cited 14 times
    Defining "Delivery"

    Conflicting testimony was presented on the subject of inducement, and, therefore the matter properly was left for the jury to resolve. E.g., Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 343 A.2d 355 (1975); compare Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958). Moreover, after instructing the jury on the elements of entrapment, the lower court properly placed the burden on the Commonwealth to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  8. Com. v. Kishbach

    247 Pa. Super. 557 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)   Cited 12 times

    Further, the issue of entrapment is a question for the jury. Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 343 A.2d 355 (1975). In the instant case, the Commonwealth introduced competent evidence on the absence of an entrapment.

  9. Com. v. Jones

    242 Pa. Super. 303 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)   Cited 39 times
    Discussing ignorance, mistake, or duress as opposed to entrapment

    " Commonwealth v. Harrison, 228 Pa. Super. 42, 44, 323 A.2d 848, 849 (1974). See also Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 234 Pa. Super. 370, 343 A.2d 355 (1975); Commonwealth v. Klein, 222 Pa. Super. 409, 294 A.2d 815 (1972); Commonwealth v. Conway, 196 Pa. Super. 97, 173 A.2d 776 (1961). This test was derived from the majority opinions in Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958), and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), which focused on the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime.