Entrapment; People v. Johnson; People v Juillet; Confidential informant (CI)

In an interlocutory appeal, the court held that “the trial court did not clearly err when it found defendant was entrapped.” Thus, it affirmed the order granting his motion for a finding of entrapment. The charges stemmed from his trip to deliver meth, “preceded by his text-message communications with a [CI] for the sale of the drugs. As part of their communication leading up to the sale, the CI offered defendant sexual favors in exchange for the" meth. The court noted that in the first of the two forms of entrapment—impermissible inducement—courts consider 12 factors set forth in Johnson, although this list is not exclusive. “When an informant is involved, the inquiry is whether ‘a normally law-abiding person in [defendant’s] circumstances would be induced into committing the crime charged because of the actions of the police through their paid informant.’” The CI in this case “was not paid, but participated in the investigation for the possibility of lenient treatment for criminal charges she was facing. The CI, who was acting under the supervision and encouragement of [a deputy] throughout the entire text-message exchange with defendant, was properly treated as a government agent for the purpose of determining the existence of entrapment.” The trial court made findings for each of the 12 Johnson factors, determining “that factors 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10 did not favor defendant or” did not apply, and “that factors, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 weighed in” his favor. While the court concluded that factors 5 and 7 did not apply or did not weigh in favor of a finding of entrapment, it was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made” in the trial court’s overall finding of entrapment. “The investigation in this case was specifically and solely targeted at defendant. [He] and the CI had a preexisting relationship as drug dealer and buyer. This relationship was not sexual in nature, but the CI knew that defendant was interested in a sexual relationship with her. When the CI’s attempt to solicit a drug sale from [him] by offering to pay a debt she owed him and by offering additional money did not succeed, the CI, under the direct supervision of a police officer, then leveraged defendant’s preexisting sexual interest in her to entice him to sell her drugs. Thereafter, the conversation between defendant and the CI shifted primarily to his desire to have sex with her.”