People v. Fisher, 50 N.Y.2d 923 (1980)
The defense of entrapment requires a showing that the defendant was actively induced by government agents to commit the crime; merely providing the opportunity is insufficient.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment. The defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a factual question as to whether he was actively induced by government agents to commit the crime of possession. Additionally, the Court found no deprivation of the defendant’s right to counsel or confrontation, as defense counsel’s prior representation of a key witness did not limit his efforts on behalf of the defendant, especially considering the defendant’s admission to the underlying conduct.
Facts
The defendant, Fisher, was charged with criminal possession. At trial, Fisher requested the court to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment. He argued that a government informant had improperly induced him to commit the crime. Further, Fisher argued that his attorney’s prior representation of the informant created a conflict of interest, depriving him of his right to counsel and the right to confront witnesses.
Procedural History
The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the entrapment defense and Fisher was convicted of the possession charges. This decision was appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Fisher then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment.
2. Whether the defendant was deprived of his right to counsel and right of confrontation due to his counsel’s prior representation of a key witness.
Holding
1. No, because the defendant failed to raise a factual question as to whether he was actively induced by government agents to commit the crime.
2. No, because defense counsel’s prior representation of the witness did not limit his efforts on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant’s admission of the underlying conduct negated any potential prejudice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the entrapment defense requires more than simply providing the opportunity to commit a crime. The defendant must show that government agents actively induced him to commit the criminal act. In this case, the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of active inducement to warrant an entrapment instruction. The court referenced Penal Law § 40.05, which codifies the entrapment defense in New York.
Regarding the right to counsel, the Court found no evidence that defense counsel’s prior representation of the informant limited his ability to effectively represent the defendant. The Court emphasized that the defendant admitted to the conduct underlying the possession charges. Therefore, any alleged failure by defense counsel to attack the informant’s character could not have reasonably prejudiced the defendant. The Court found no conflict of interest that impaired the defense.
The court implicitly distinguished this case from situations where government overreach or coercion is evident, which would support an entrapment defense. The ruling emphasizes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate active inducement, not merely the existence of an opportunity to commit the crime.