Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
20. On appeal, the defendant's conviction should be
A defendant was prosecuted for selling cocaine to an undercover police agent. At his trial, he testified that he only sold the drugs to the agent, whom the defendant knew as «Speedy,» because Speedy had told him that he (Speedy) would be killed by fellow gang members unless he supplied them with cocaine. The prosecution did not cross-examine the defendant. As rebuttal evidence, however, the prosecutor introduced records, over the defendant's objection, showing that he had two prior convictions for narcotics-related offenses. The court instructed the jury concerning the defense of entrapment and added, also over the defendant's objection but in accord with state law, that it should acquit on the ground of entrapment only if it found that the defendant had established the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant was convicted.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
D is correct. Evidence that the defendant previously committed narcotics crimes is relevant to whether he had the willingness to commit the crime of selling cocaine. Moreover, the court properly followed state law when it instructed the jury that the defendant must prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the court acted properly on both issues, neither constitutes grounds to reverse the conviction.
A is incorrect. The prior convictions were properly introduced as rebuttal evidence to show the defendant's willingness to commit the crime. Once a defendant has raised an entrapment defense, the prosecution, in rebuttal, is allowed to introduce prior related convictions as substantive evidence to disprove the entrapment defense by showing the defendant's willingness to commit the crime as relevant prior misconduct.
B is incorrect. The state must prove all the substantive elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and shifting the burden of proof with respect to those elements would violate due process. However, entrapment is an affirmative defense, and the state is permitted to shift the burden of proof of an affirmative defense to the defendant without violating due process.
C is incorrect. As explained above, the court properly admitted evidence of the prior convictions to prove a willingness to commit a narcotics offense, which therefore does not constitute grounds for reversal. Additionally, the court properly instructed the jury regarding the burden of proof for the entrapment defense because the state may shift the burden of an affirmative defense to the accused.