Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

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

Gov’t of the Canal Zone v. Calvin Charles R. (Risbrook), 454 F.2d 725 (5th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-02-04
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed The Government of the Canal Zone v. Calvin Charles R. (Risbrook). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
GOVERNMENT OF CANAL ZONE v. RISBROOK,454 F.2d 725(5th Cir. 1972)
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CANAL ZONE, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. CALVIN CHARLES R.
(RISBROOK), RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
No. 71-3295.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 4, 1972.
W. J. Sheridan, Jr., Balboa Heights, Canal Zone, for respondent-appellant.

Lester Engler, U.S. Atty., Thomas E. Haney, Wallace D. Baldwin, Asst. U.S. Attys., Balboa, Canal Zone, for petitioner-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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 of21 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Affirmed.Page 728
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩