36 N.Y.2d 768 (1975)

The defense of entrapment is available if law enforcement officers actively induce or encourage the defendant to commit a crime, even if the intent to entrap is formed after initial contact with the defendant; it is not necessary that the intent to entrap existed before encountering the defendant.

Summary

John Freeman was convicted of bribing police officers following a search of a luncheonette where he was present. He argued entrapment as a defense. The trial court incorrectly instructed the jury that to find entrapment, they had to determine the police went to the premises intending to induce the bribery. Defense counsel argued the intent to entrap could have formed later. The trial judge initially agreed to correct the charge but then reversed himself. The Court of Appeals found the charge erroneous because it required a finding that the police had the intent to entrap before arriving, effectively removing the entrapment defense from consideration. The conviction was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Facts

Police officers executed a search warrant at a luncheonette where John Freeman was present.

During the search, Freeman offered money to the officers.

Freeman was subsequently arrested and charged with bribery.

Freeman argued that he had been entrapped by the officers.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted Freeman of bribery.

Freeman appealed, arguing the jury instruction on entrapment was erroneous.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

Freeman appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the defense of entrapment required a finding that the police officers went to the premises with the intent to induce the defendant to commit bribery, thus precluding consideration of an intent to entrap formed after arrival.

Holding

Yes, because the intent to entrap could have been formed by the police after their arrival at the premises or indeed at some time during the course of their search.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found the trial court’s charge regarding entrapment to be incorrect and prejudicial to the defendant. The court stated that the trial court’s instruction required the jury to find that the officers went to the premises *intending* to induce defendant to commit bribery. The court clarified that “the intention to entrap defendant could have been formed by the police after their arrival at the premises or indeed at some time during the course of their search.” This misstatement, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the bribery itself, effectively removed the entrapment defense from the jury’s consideration, warranting a new trial. The court noted, “In effect the trial court charged entrapment out of the case.” The court also emphasized that there was no evidence that the officers expected to find Freeman at the luncheonette when they went to execute the warrant. Therefore, the error in the charge was critical. The court stated, “It is conceded that standing alone the quoted portion of the charge was incorrect.”