Snead v. State

Sybert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Convicted (as a third offender) in three cases of the sale, possession, and control of a narcotic drug, the appellant, Snead, claims here that the evidence showed that he was entrapped by a federal narcotics officer and a police informer, and that he was not the seller, but the agent of the narcotics officer in purchasing the drug, so that his sale, possession and control were those of the officer. The State’s evidence was as follows. On the first occasion the narcotics agent and the informer drove to the home of the appellant in Baltimore City, where the informer brought the appellant out and both entered the agent’s car.

The appellant told the agent to drive to a certain address. Upon arrival, the appellant asked the agent how much narcotics he wished to ⁶⁵ purchase and the agent replied four decks of heroin, whereupon the agent gave the appellant $42.00. The appellant got out of the car, but returned in a few minutes and handed $30.00' in change and two packets of heroin to the informer. The agent then drove the appellant back to his residence.

On the next day, the agent went alone to the appellant’s residence and was admitted by the appellant, who told him “he had not charged me enough” for the narcotics purchased on the previous day. Thereupon the agent gave the appellant the $6.00 requested and told him he wished to purchase additional narcotics. Later that day the agent drove the appellant to the same address as before. The appellant, after the agent had given him $36.00, left the car and soon returned with seven capsules of heroin, five of which he gave to the agent along with $4.00 in change, and two of which he kept himself.

Eleven days later the agent again went to the appellant’s residence, drove him to a different address, and gave him $36.00 after the appellant asked the agent how much narcotics he desired. The appellant got out of the car and returned in a few minutes with two packets of heroin which he turned over to the agent with $12.00' in change. On this occasion the appellant requested pay for his services in obtaining the drug, on the ground that his supplier had usually “taken care” of him, bur this time had not. The agent testified that also on this occasion the appellant “told me he was very interested in obtaining some cocaine, he had no sources of supply for that and I told him I might be able to do him some good and he said he could get me unlimited quantities of heroin in exchange for the cocaine.” We think the facts fail to support the defense of entrapment.

In the recent case of Stewart