Entrapment; People v. Woods; People v. Fyda; People v. Jamieson; The modified objective test for analyzing entrapment; People v. Akhmedov; Determining whether the police engaged in impermissible conduct; People v. Johnson; Considering the particular defendant’s circumstances; People v. Juillet; Principle that a timely raised entrapment claim is not deemed waived by an unconditional guilty plea; People v. Crall; Illegal sale of medical marijuana under § 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) (MCL 333.26421 et seq.); Mid-Michigan Area Group Narcotics Enforcement Team (MAGNET)

Holding that the defendant was entrapped as a matter of law, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss based on entrapment and vacated his plea-based convictions for the illegal sale of marijuana under the MMMA. It concluded that the police informant, defendant’s co-worker (T), played upon their friendship in convincing him to sell him marijuana. After a search of his home turned up an impermissible amount of marijuana, T (a medical-marijuana caregiver and patient) accepted “an opportunity to mitigate the legal consequences against him by assisting with controlled drug buys on MAGNET’s behalf.” He targeted defendant, and expanded their relationship by training him in welding and taking him fishing. “Using this purposefully-forged relationship,” he lulled him “into believing that his friend would not steer him into an illegal situation” and told him that patient to patient transfers were legal. The court noted that defendant was not previously a marijuana seller. T targeted him “not because he was a known drug dealer or even because he dabbled in small transfers to friends. Rather, [T] felt trapped by MAGNET to find someone, anyone to snare to avoid his own criminal consequences” and knew defendant was a medical marijuana patient. “The result of MAGNET’s method was to use a minnow to spawn and capture an even smaller fish.” Viewing the fourth Johnson factor in a vacuum, it “might agree that promises of a higher paying job would not suffice. However, [T] also made ‘guarantee[s] that the acts alleged as crimes were not illegal.’ And the crimes were not escalated to a serious level; the sales were all below 2.5 ounces.” The defendant’s circumstances may be considered in analyzing the ready and willing component. He had a wife and 2 children to support, but was only earning $10.40 an hour. The additional income working as a welder “essentially brought the family above the poverty line.” T made the promotion conditional on defendant’s providing marijuana when T was short of it for his medical marijuana patients. He only provided small quantities and did not provide it for improper use. The court ordered his record of conviction expunged.