Smith v. State

Per Curiam. Carl Henry Smith appeals his conviction of possession and control of narcotics, relying on the defenses of entrapment, that he was a mere conduit for an informer, that he was deprived of the right of cross-examination of the informer because the State did not call him as its witness, and deprived of the benefit of the informer’s testimony when he (the appellant) called him and the informer took the fifth amendment. A Baltimore City police officer met an informer and, while they stood on a pavement in West Baltimore, a third person joined them and the possibility of buying narcotics was discussed. The third person disappeared into a nearby building and then the appellant emerged, joined the informer and the police officer and discussed a possible sale.

After receiving ten dollars from the informer, the appellant left and returned a short while later and gave one cellophane bag to the officer in exchange for ten dollars and another bag to the informer. The contents of the bag were found to be heroin hydrochloride, an opium derivative. As was true in Stewart v. State, 232 Md. 318 , the record shows no more than that the police officer joined with a civilian to detect a violation of the law. The fact that the police officer neither knew nor was looking for the appellant when the meeting occurred, rebuts the possibility of “repeated and persistent ⁷¹⁴ solicitation of a previously law-abiding citizen in order to overcome his reluctance to commit crime.” Stewart v. State, supra at 321.

See also Pointer v. State, 239 Md. 641 ; Cross v. State, 235 Md. 377 ; Snead v. State, 234 Md. 63 ; Lane v. State, 226 Md. 81 . Appellant’s claim that he was a mere agent or conduit for the informer fails to