The Government of the Canal Zone v. Calvin Charles R. (Risbrook)

Fifth Circuit

The Government of the Canal Zone v. Calvin Charles R. (Risbrook)

454 F.2d 725, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11465

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 4, 1972·No. 71-3295·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Entrapment is the sole issue raised by Risbrook in this appeal. Having testified that he never dispensed cocaine or possessed marijuana with intent to dispense it in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a) (1), Risbrook nevertheless contends that he was entrapped. The district court, sitting without a jury, held that under these circumstances this defense was not available, and there being abundant proof of Risbrook’s guilt he was convicted of the offenses charged. We affirm.

When the defendant denies on the stand the very acts upon which the prosecution is predicated, the defense for entrapment is not available. This is so because such “a denial is inconsistent with the defense, which assumes that the act charged was committed.” United States v. Groessel, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 602, United States v. Crowe, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.3d 670, United States v. Pickle, 5 Cir, 1970, 424 F.2d 528.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Entrapment is the sole issue raised by Risbrook in this appeal. Having testified that he never dispensed cocaine or possessed marijuana with intent to dispense it in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a) (1), Risbrook nevertheless contends that he was entrapped. The district court, sitting without a jury, held that under these circumstances this defense was not available, and there being abundant proof of Risbrook’s guilt he was convicted of the offenses charged. We affirm.

When the defendant denies on the stand the very acts upon which the prosecution is predicated, the defense for entrapment is not available. This is so because such “a denial is inconsistent with the defense, which assumes that the act charged was committed.” United States v. Groessel, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 602, United States v. Crowe, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.3d 670, United States v. Pickle, 5 Cir, 1970, 424 F.2d 528.

Affirmed.

The Government of the Canal Zone v. Calvin Charles R. (Risbrook), 454 F.2d 725, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11465 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

454 F.2d 725 (The Government of the Canal Zone v. Calvin Charles R. (Risbrook)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related