Marvel v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Marvel v. State

312 A.2d 318, 1973 Del. LEXIS 271

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

DecidedOctober 4, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 312 A.2d 318 (Marvel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marvel v. State, 312 A.2d 318, 1973 Del. LEXIS 271 (Del. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The single issue raised by defendant in this appeal from a conviction for the sale of narcotic drugs in violation of 16 Del.C. § 4725 concerns the refusal by the Trial Court to charge on entrapment. After considering the pertinent parts of the record, the briefs and the arguments of counsel, we have concluded that the decision of the Trial Court was correct. Dobrosielski v. State, Del.Supr., 311 A.2d 875 (decided Sept. 17, 1973); Granville v. State, Del.Supr., 287 A.2d 652 (1972). Defendant’s reliance upon such cases as Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), is misplaced because they included evidence of luring or positive pressure upon a defendant to commit a crime as to which he had no prior disposition. Here, defendant was merely given the opportunity to violate the law and that is not entrapment. Dobrosielski v. State, supra; Granville v. State, supra.

At oral argument the Deputy Attorney General informally requested the Court to review the form in which the charge on entrapment is usually given by the Superior Court. We agree that the form needs reviewing but that should be done by the Superior Court, or by this Court when the issue is properly before us. Here, the Trial Court did not charge on entrapment; accordingly, the form of charge is not before us on this appeal. Compare Johnson v. State, Del.Supr., 311 A.2d 873 (decided Oct. 4, 1973).

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The single issue raised by defendant in this appeal from a conviction for the sale of narcotic drugs in violation of 16 Del.C. § 4725 concerns the refusal by the Trial Court to charge on entrapment. After considering the pertinent parts of the record, the briefs and the arguments of counsel, we have concluded that the decision of the Trial Court was correct. Dobrosielski v. State, Del.Supr., 311 A.2d 875 (decided Sept. 17, 1973); Granville v. State, Del.Supr., 287 A.2d 652 (1972). Defendant’s reliance upon such cases as Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), is misplaced because they included evidence of luring or positive pressure upon a defendant to commit a crime as to which he had no prior disposition. Here, defendant was merely given the opportunity to violate the law and that is not entrapment. Dobrosielski v. State, supra; Granville v. State, supra.

At oral argument the Deputy Attorney General informally requested the Court to review the form in which the charge on entrapment is usually given by the Superior Court. We agree that the form needs reviewing but that should be done by the Superior Court, or by this Court when the issue is properly before us. Here, the Trial Court did not charge on entrapment; accordingly, the form of charge is not before us on this appeal. Compare Johnson v. State, Del.Supr., 311 A.2d 873 (decided Oct. 4, 1973).

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 A.2d 318, 1973 Del. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvel-v-state-del-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack