Jackson v. State

The evidence did not support entrapment where the defendant willingly participated in a drug deal and the CI merely furnished an opportunity to the defendant, who was ready to commit the offense.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Melvin Lee Jackson guilty of sale of cocaine, and the trial court denied his motion for new trial. On appeal, Jackson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal because the confidential informant involved in the drug deal entrapped him as a matter of law. We disagree and affirm. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Citation omitted. Valentine v. State , 301 Ga. App. 630, 630-631 689 SE2d 76 2009. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence shows that investigators with the City of Newnan Police Department were involved in an ongoing undercover drug operation that targeted suspected cocaine dealers. As part of the operation, the investigators engaged a confidential informant to make controlled buys of cocaine. Prior to each controlled buy, an investigator searched the informant to make sure he had no contraband on his person, wired him with a hidden audio and video surveillance device, provided him with money to make the drug purchase, and instructed him to go to a predetermined location to purchase the drugs. The informant was paid for carrying out each drug buy.

One of the suspected cocaine dealers targeted in the investigation was Jeffery Rhoades, but he was unwilling to sell cocaine directly to the informant. The informant spoke with Jackson, whom the informant had known for approximately one year, and Jackson agreed to act as an intermediary. The controlled buy occurred a few days later on the evening of January 27, 2009.

Jackson v. State

The evidence did not support entrapment where the defendant willingly participated in a drug deal and the CI merely furnished an opportunity to the defendant, who was ready to commit the offense.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report