AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of trafficking methamphetamine after selling the drug to an undercover police officer. This transaction was arranged by a confidential informant (CI) and took place at the CI's trailer, with the CI, the undercover officer, the CI's girlfriend, and the Defendant present. The Defendant argued that he was induced to sell the drugs because the CI's girlfriend offered him sex in exchange for making the sale, a practice he deemed unconscionable and equated to entrapment (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Jerry H. Ritter Jr., District Judge, October 22, 2015.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the practice of being offered sex by the CI's girlfriend in exchange for selling methamphetamine amounted to normative entrapment, requiring the charge's dismissal or, alternatively, that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on objective and normative entrapment (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the use of the CI’s girlfriend in the controlled buy constituted normative entrapment as a matter of law.
• Whether the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on issues of objective and normative entrapment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for distributing methamphetamine (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Vanzi, J., and Hanisee, J., concurring), the court found that:
  The Defendant's motion to dismiss based on entrapment and/or outrageous government conduct was denied by the district court. The Defendant argued that he was induced to commit the crime due to an offer of sex by the CI's girlfriend, which he considered to be unconscionable and equivalent to entrapment. However, the court determined that the evidence did not conclusively indicate that the CI's girlfriend acted as a result of police conduct, thus not meeting the threshold for normative entrapment as a matter of law (paras 11-14).
  The district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss, which depended on the Defendant's uncorroborated testimony regarding the CI's girlfriend's offer. The court emphasized that credibility, especially in a normative entrapment analysis, is typically a question for the jury (paras 15-17).
  Regarding the jury instructions, the court affirmed the district court's decision to give the UJI 14-5160 instruction and refuse the UJI 14-5161 instruction. The refusal was based on the conclusion that there was no excessive conduct by law enforcement as a matter of law. The court also noted that the Defendant did not sufficiently differentiate between the two tendered instructions or assert a distinct theory under UJI 14-5161 that would have warranted its inclusion (paras 18-29).