STATE v KARATHANOS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12079 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F 1972 THE STATE O M N A A F OTN, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - NICHOLAS A T U KARATHANOS, RH R Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Sandall, Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Charles F. Moses argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Submitted: Decided : Filed: FrP 1992 January 11, 1972 I 7972 Hon. Frank E . B l a i r , D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g f o r A s s o c i a t e J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . I n t h i s c a u s e d e f e n d a n t , N i c h o l a s A r t h u r K a r a t h a n o s , was charged w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s i n Yellowstone County and was c o n v i c t e d by a j u r y on March 3 0 , 1971. O April n 1 3 , 1971, h e was s e n t e n c e d t o imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n f o r a p e r i o d o f twenty y e a r s . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , d e f e n d a n t was a d m i t t e d t o b a i l i n t h e sum of $15,000, which was f u r n i s h e d . O n J u n e 1, 1971, d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d . Substantially the facts i n t h i s case a r e : Defendant i s 32 y e a r s of a g e , u n m a r r i e d , a f i e l d s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r f o r C o l l i n s Radio Company and h a s n e v e r p r e v i o u s l y been c h a r g e d w i t h any c r i m e . On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1970, d e f e n d a n t was i n t r o d u c e d t o Hazel J e a n Langford a t t h e C i r c l e I n n , B i l l i n g s , Montana, by a b a r maid. named Thornton. Defendant was i n t h e company o f a man The t h r e e s a t down a t a t a b l e a d j a c e n t t o t h e bar a t t h e C i r c l e Inn. Defendant o r d e r e d a round o f d r i n k s . During t h e e n s u i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t asked Mrs. Langford what k i n d of s t u f f 6he wanted. of s t u f f h e had. Mrs. Langford asked him what k i n d He r e p l i e d " t h a t h e o n l y had Dexedrine l e f t . I I Defendant t h e n asked what s h e wanted t h a t n i g h t and s h e informed him t h a t s h e had $40. Defendant s a i d t h a t h e c o u l d s e l l h e r 100 c a p s of Dexedrine f o r $12. She t o l d him t h a t s h e had $500 s e t a s i d e t o buy s t u f f w i t h ; d e f e n d a n t t h e n s t a t e d t h a t h e c o u l d s e l l h e r 4 , 0 0 0 c a p s of Dexedrine f o r $480, and h e would &f i w r them t h e n e x t day between 1 : 0 0 and 2:00 o ' c l o c k , p.m. He a l s o t o l d M r s . Langford " t h a t h e had a d r o p and t h a t h e n e v e r k e p t t h e s t u f f i n h i s a p a r t m e n t , and h e s a i d a l s o , 'I w h o l e s a l e o n l y , i f I were t o push on t h e s t r e e t I would b e b u s t e d i n two d a y s . 1 t1 Defendant and Mrs. Langford t h e n went o u t s i d e t h e C i r c l e I n n , where d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r was parked. Both g o t i n t h e c a r and d e f e n d a n t r e a c h e d under t h e s e a t and p u l l e d o u t a package o f 100 c a p s of Dexedrine; Mrs. Langford p a i d him $12 and h e g a v e h e r t h e Dexedrine. The n e x t day d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d on Mrs. Langford a t a n a p a r t m e n t s h e was occupying t e m p o r a r i l y . She o f f e r e d d e f e n d a n t a cup o f c o f f e e and t h e y s a t down and t a l k e d f o r a few m i n u t e s . He a s k e d h e r i f s h e had t h e "bread" r e a d y . She s a i d "yes". She a c t u a l l y had t h r e e $100, two $50 and f i v e $20 b i l l s , a l l o f which was marked money g i v e n h e r by t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , h e r employer. Defendant,upon l e a r n i n g t h e money was a v a i l a b l e , went o u t t o h i s c a r and r e t u r n e d i n a few minutes w i t h f o u r c e l l o p h a n e packages c o n t a i n i n g a b o u t 1 , 0 0 0 t a b l e t s e a c h , i . e . 4,000 i n a l l , f o r which Mrs. Langford p a i d him $480 i n marked money. money i n h i s f r o n t p a n t s p o c k e t . Defendant p u t t h e Mrs. L a n g f o r d , a b i t l a t e r , t u r n e d over t h e t a b l e t s o f Dexedrine t o J i m Meeks, t h e n a d e p u t y sheriff. Defendant was a r r e s t e d by s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s a s h e l e f t Mrs. ~ a n g f o r d ' sa p a r t m e n t . During h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h d e f e n d a n t , Mrs. L a n g f o r d had a n e l e c t r o n i c t r a n s m i t t e r c o n c e a l e d on h e r p e r s o n and t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e c o u l d h e a r much, i f n o t m o s t , of t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n between them. The s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h i s was done p r i m a r i l y f o r Mrs. ~ a n g f o r d ' sp r o t e c t i o n . The d e f e n s e c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s one D r . Wesley Duane A l b e r t , a l i c e n s e d p h y s i c i a n and s u r g e o n from Laguna Beach, C a l i f o r n i a , who had p r a c t i c e d f i f t e e n y e a r s , s p e c i a l i z i n g i n n u t r i t i o n , o b e s i t y and c h r o n i c d i s e a s e s s u c h a s d i a b e t e s and arthritis. The d o c t o r f i r s t met d e f e n d a n t i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1968 and t r e a t e d him i n August 1969, a t which t i m e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e was d i a g n o s e d a s a moderate form o f n a r c o l e p s y . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o c o n t a c t i n g D r . A l b e r t he had been i n j u r e d i n Saigon and t h e r e a f t e r would f a l l a s l e e p momentarily, f o r no apparent reason. D r . A l b e r t p r e s c r i b e d dextro-amphetamine s u l p h a t e i n a n amount of 5 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s . dextro-amphetamine s u l p h a t e . Dexedrine i s a t r a d e name f o r The q u a n t i t y , a s e x p l a i n e d by t h e d o c t o r , was b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t r e p r e s e n t e d t o him t h a t h i s employer was g o i n g t o send him t o S o u t h America i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1970, f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s , p o s s i b l y even f o u r o r f i v e y e a r s . D r . Albert had n o t s e a t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n c e h e g a v e him t h e 5 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s of t h e drug prescribed, u n t i l t h e t r i a l . Defendant r a i s e s s e v e n i s s u e s f o r review on t h i s a p p e a l . They c a n be b r i e f l y summarized a s f o l l o w s : A. Did d e f e n d a n t come w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n s o t t h e Montana Dangerous Drug A c t ? B. Was t h e r e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i c t and prove t h a t d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t come w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n s a£ t h e Montana Dangerous Drug A c t ? C. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e s t a t e ' s case? D. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n s 1 8 , 1 9 , 20, 2 1 and 22? E. Are s e c t i o n s 54-131 and 54-132, R.C.M. 1947, o f t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act s o ambiguous and u n c e r t a i n , i n t h a t the a c t s prohibited a r e not s u f f i c i e n t l y s e t f o r t h , a s t o bar prosecution? F. Was punishment of twenty y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment under t h e f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e ? G. Was t h e r e e n t r a p m e n t i n t h i s c a s e ? I s s u e s A , B , C and E can be t r e a t e d t o g e t h e r b u t b e f o r e our d i s c u s s i o n we s e t f o r t h p e r t i n e n t t e s t i m o n y o f D r . Wesley A l b e r t : "Q. Would you t e l l us what m e d i c a t i o n you p r e s c r i b e d ? "A. I p r e s c r i b e d a dextro-amphetamine s u l p h a t e . "Q. Do you know how many c a p s u l e s you gave t o him, o r d i s p e n s e d t o him a t t h a t t i m e ? "A. Yes, I gave him 5 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s . " From t h i s t e s t i m o n y i t a p p e a r s t h a t D r . A l b e r t was a d i s p e n s i n g p h y s i c i a n and c a r r i e d h i s own d r u g s . It does n o t appear t h a t he wrote a p r e s c r i p t i o n , nor t h a t a p r e s c r i p t i o n was " f i l l e d " a t a l o c a l o r o t h e r pharmacy. D r . Albert, himself, d i s p e n s e d 5 , 0 0 0 Dexedrine c a p s u l e s t o d e f e n d a n t . The law under which d e f e n d a n t was charged i s s e c t i o n 5 4 - 1 3 2 ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947: " ( a ) A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f a c r i m i n a l s a l e o f dangerous d r u g s i f h e s e l l s , m a n u f a c t u r e s , p r e p a r e s , c u l t i v a t e s , compounds o r p r o c e s s e s any dangerous drug a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s a c t and does n o t come w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n s o f s e c t i o n 3 [54-1311." R e g u l a r p h y s i c i a n s and s u r g e o n s may p r e s c r i b e d r u g s f o r t h e i r p a t i e n t s i n w r i t i n g , o r dispense. W assume t h a t D r . A l b e r t e d i s p e n s e d 5 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s o f Dexedrine t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , i n f u l l c o n f o r m i t y w i t h C a l i f o r n i a law. There i s nothing t h e record t o i n d i c a t e o t h e r w i s e , w h a t e v e r we may t h i n k o f t h e i m p r o p r i e t y o f d i s p e n s i n g 5,000 c a p s u l e s o f Dexedrine a t one t i m e , t o one p e r s o n , by a p h y s i c i a n who i s a m e d i c a l d o c t o r . S e c t i o n 54-131, R.C.M. 1947, r e a d s i n m a t e r i a l p a r t : "(2) The f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s a r e e x c e p t e d from t h e d e s i g n a t e d c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s o f s e c t i o n s 4 and 5 [54-132 and 54-1331 o f t h i s a c t w h i l e a c t i n g i n t h e o r d i n a r y and a u t h o r i z e d c o u r s e o f t h e i r b u s i n e s s , p r o f e s s i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , employment o r r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y and whose a c t i v i t i e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h dangerous d r u g s a r e s o l e l y a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n ; 9~ ** " ( j ) A person t o whom o r f o r whose u s e any dangerous drug h a s been p r e s c r i b e d , s o l d , o r d i s p e n s e d by a n a u t h o r i z e d p r a c t i t i o n e r o r pharmacist may l a w f u l l y p o s s e s s s u c h drug. " Under t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e we a r e of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t l a w f u l l y p o s s e s s e d t h e Dexedrine c a p s u l e s i n e v i d e n c e i n t h i s case. However, what we a r e concerned w i t h h e r e i s n o t h i s p o s s e s s i o n , b u t t h e s a l e o f t h e l a w f u l l y possessed drug t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s undercover a g e n t . s e c t i o n 54-132, R.C .M. The argument ok d e f e n d a n t t h a t 1947, p r e c l u d e s p r o s e c u t i o n f o r t h e s a l e o f dangerous drugs by a person who comes w i t h i n s e c t i o n 543 ( 2 ) ( j ) , R.C.M. 1947, i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . S u b s e c t i o n (j) i s n o t a n exemption of s t a t u s b u t of c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s and i s c ' o n t r o l l e d by s e c t i o n 54-131(2), which r e a d s : " ( 2 ) The f o l l o w i n g persons a r e excepted from t h e designated criminal offenses of sections 4 and 5 [54-132 and 34-1331 o f t h i s a c t w h i l e a c t i n g i n t h e o r d i n a r y and a u t h o r i z e d c o u r s e o f t h e i r b u s i n e s s , p r o f e s s i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , employment, o r r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y o r whose a c t i v i t i e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h dangerous drugs a r e s o l e l y a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n . " (See S u b d i v i s i o n s (a) through ( k ) ) . Thus d e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h a t h e i s exempt i s w i t h o u t foundation. S e c t i o n 54-132, R.C .M. 1947, is c l e a r and unambiguous, s o c l e a r and unambiguous i n f a c t , t h a t i t c o n s t r u e s i t s e l f . So, t o o , i s s u b d i v i s i o n (2) o f s e c t i o n 54-131, R.C.M. d i v i s i o n s ( a ) through (k) , 1947. Sub- under s e c t i o n 54-131 ( 2 ) , except from d e s i g n a t e d c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s o f s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133, t h o s e a c t i n g i n t h e o r d i n a r y and a u t h o r i z e d c o u r s e o f t h e i r business , p r o f e s s i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , employment o r r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y and whose a c t i v i t i e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h dangerous d r u g s a r e s o l e l y a s prescribed i n t h i s section. Defendant, under s e c t i o n 54-131(2) ( j ) , R.C.M. 1947, i n t h e c o n t e x t i n which i t a p p e a r s and under t h e e v i d e n c e , was l e g a l l y a u t h o r i z e d t o p o s s e s s and u s e i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f h i s II n a r c o l e p s y " t h e 5 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s o r Dexedrine a s d i r e c t e d by D r . A l b e r t , b u t i n n o means was h e a u t h o r i z e d t o s e l l them i n o u t r i g h t d e f i a n c e 0 2 t h e p1ai.n terms o f s e c t i o n 54-132, R.C.M. 1947. The c o n t e n t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t t h a t i t was t h e d u t y o f t h e s t a t e t o plead and prove t h a t d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t come w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n s s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 54-131, R.C.M. foundation. 1947, i s w i t h o u t The s t a t e i s n o t bound t o n e g a t e a n e x c e p t i o n con- t a i n e d i n a s t a t u t e ; s u c h a n e x c e p t i o n a s we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g here i s a matter of defense. In F i t z p a t r i c k v . S t e v e n s o n , 104 Mont. 439, 443,444, 67 P.2d 310, we r e a f f i r m e d t h e f o l l o w i n g rule: "It has o f t e n been s a i d by t h i s c o u r t t h a t i n a criminal case, it i s not necessary f o r t h e s t a t e i n i t s i n f o r m a t i o n t o n e g a t i v e an exception contained i n t h e s t a t u t e , but such exception is matter t o be a s s e r t e d i n defense. (Citing cases). II It n o t b e i n g , n e c e s s a r y t o p l e a d i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n t h e e x c e p t i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n s e c t i o n 54-132, R . C . M . 1947, i t was n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s t a t e t o prove t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t come w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n s s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 54-131, R.C.M. 1947. I n S t a t e v . D a v i s , 141 Mont. 197, 201, 376 P.2d 727, f o l l o w i n g S t e v e n s o n , t h i s Court i n r e f e r r i n g t o a n e x c e p t i o n s a i d : 11 Not b e i n g n e c e s s a r y t o a l l e g e i t , i t was n o t n e c e s s a r y t o prove i t . I I Issues A,B,C, and E a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t and t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e was c o r r e c t . I s s u e s D , F and G remain t o b e r e s o l v e d . This we s h a l l do s e r i a t i m . D. D e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s 1 8 , 1 9 , 20, 21 and 22 f o l l o w s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same t h e o r y a s we have d i s c u s s e d under i s s u e s A , B , C , and E. W b v e c a r e f u l l y read t h e t e s t i m o n y e i n t h i s c a s e and have s t u d i e d t h e proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s and f i n d them t o be w i t h o u t m e r i t . F. Was punishment o f twenty y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n c r u e l and inhuman punishment under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e ? Reasoning from c a u s e t o e f f e c t , i t must be recognized t h a t t h e s h e r i f f of Yellowstone County d i d n o t employ a n underc o v e r a g e n t and r e n t a n a p a r t m e n t f o r h e r t o o p e r a t e from i n making a n appointment w i t h d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e purchase o f d r u g s , a b s e n t p r e v i o u s s u s p i c i o u s conduct on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t i n t h e dangerous drug a r e a . T h i s r e a s o n i n g i s f o r t i f i e d by t h e r e s u l t s of t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n which a p p e a r s i n t h e d i s t r i c t court f i l e . P r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s may b e c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t b e f o r e t h e pronouncement of s e n t e n c e . 2203, R.C.M. S e c t i o n 95- 1947; P e t i t i o n o f J e r a l d A . Armor, 143 Mont. 479, S e n t e n c e was imposed p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 54-132, .R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s . i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "(b) A person c o n v i c t e d of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous drugs s h a l l be imprisoned i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n f o r n o t l e s s t h a n one (1) y e a r , $<'I. n o r more t h a n l i f e ** Being over 2 1 y e a r s o f a g e , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o twenty years i n t h e s t a t e prison. Defendant contends t h i s s e n t e n c e was c r u e l and unusual punishment. A t t h e time o f s e n t e n c e , de- f e n d a n t was a f u l l y grown man, 32 y e a r s of a g e , o f u n u s u a l a b i l i t y i n t h e e l e c t r o n i c s f i e l d i n which h e e a r n e d $12,000 p e r y e a r . No u r g e n t monetary motive a p p e a r e d f o r him t o "push" dangerous drugs. The m o t i v a t i n g f o r c e behind t h e s a l e o f t h e f i r s t 100 Dexedrine c a p s u l e s t o Mrs. L a n g f o r d , by h i s own t e s t i m o n y , was a p p a r e n t l y h i s l u s t f o r h e r body. Moreover, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t of h i s p u r c h a s e of 5 , 0 0 0 Dexedrine c a p s u l e s from t h e C a l i f o r n i a d o c t o r was, i n t h e l i g h t o f h i s s a l e of 4 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s undercover a g e n t , a c i r c u m s t a n c e which was i n d i c a t i v e of a c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t and smacked of v a r i o u s o t h e r s a l e s and a modus o p e r a n d i . It i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t a s e n t e n c e w i t h i n t h e maximum a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e i s n o t c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment. The N i n t h C i r c u i t Court of Appeals i n Black v . United S t a t e s , 269 F.2d 3 8 , 4 3 , a f f i r m e d a t h i r t y y e a r s e n t e n c e on a n a r c o t i c c h a r g e . T h e r e a p p e l l a n t , t h e n 5 1 y e a r s of a g e , a r g u e d t h a t t h i s amounted t o l i f e imprisonment. The maximum punishment i n Montana f o r t h e c r i m e which d e f e n d a n t was charged w i t h , i s l i f e imprisonment. Black was d e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t . 361 U.S. 938, 80 S . C t . 379, 4 L.ed 2d 357. I n Black i s l a n g u a g e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s c a s e : "'The Eighth Amendment was a d o p t e d t o p r e v e n t inhuman, b a r b a r o u s , o r t o r t u r o u s punishment. I t i s p o s s i b l e f o r t h e l e n g t h of a s e n t e n c e t o be so disproportionate t o the offense a s t o f a l l w i t h i n t h e i n h i b i t i o n . Hermans v . United S t a t e s , 6 C i r . 163 F.2d 228, 237. O r d i n a r i l y , however, where t h e s e n t e n c e imposed i s w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s t a t u t e f o r t h e o f f e n s e comm i t t e d , i t w i l l n o t be r e g a r d e d a s c r u e l and unusual. Edwards v . United S t a t e s , 10 C i r . 206 F.2d 855. I n o u r view t h e a g g r e g a t e s e n t e n c e imposed on Black i s n o t s o d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e o f f e n s e committed a s t o o f f e n d t h e E i g h t h Amendment ban. " There i s n o m e r i t t o t h i s a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r . The t r i a l c o u r t observed t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f y . I t was v e s t e d w i t h a wide d i s c r e t i o n i n f i x i n g t h e punishment. No a b u s e o f d i s - cretion appears. An e x c e l l e n t t r e a t m e n t o f "Cruel Punishment- L e n g t h o f Sentence" a p p e a r s i n 33 ALR3d 343, e t s e a u e n t i a . G. Was t h e r e e n t r a p m e n t i n t h i s c a s e ? A r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s question r e o u i r e s a b r i e f review of t h e evidence. On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1970, Hazel J e a n L a n g f o r d , a n undercover a g e n t f o r t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e o f Yellowstone County, went t o t h e C i r c l e I n n a t B i l l i n g s under t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h a t o f f i c e . her person. fendant. She had a n e l e c t r o n i c t r a n s m i t t e r c o n c e a l e d on A f t e r e n t e r i n g t h e b a r , s h e was i n t r o d u c e d t o d e - The d e f e n d a n t , Mrs. Langford,and a n o t h e r , s a t down a t a t a b l e and o r d e r e d d r i n k s . In t h e ensuing conversation, d e f e n d a n t a s k e d Mrs. Langford what k i n d of s t u f f s h e wanted. She i n t u r n asked him what k i n d h e h a d , t o which h e r e p l i e d t h a t h e o n l y had Dexedrine c a p s u l e s l e f t . He a g a i n asked h e r what s h e wanted and s h e t o l d him s h e o n l y had $40. He t h e n t o l d h e r h e c o u l d s e l l h e r 100 Dexedrine c a p s f o r $12. She t o l d him t h a t s h e had $500 s e t a s i d e t o buy s t u f f , and h e informed h e r h e had 10,000 c a p s 6f Dexedrine and t h a t h e would s e l l h e r 4 , 0 0 0 f o r $480. Defendant and Mrs. Langford t h e n went t o h i s c a r , where he d e l i v e r e d a package of 100 c a p s u l e s of t h e drug., The n e x t day d e f e n d a n t t e l e p h o n e d Mrs. Langford and t o l d h e r h e would d e l i v e r t h e 4 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s a t 4 p.m. A t t h a t time h e came t o h e r a p a r t m e n t where he d e l i v e r e d f o u r c e l l o p h a n e packa g e s e a c h c o n t a i n i n g 1 , 0 0 0 c a p s u l e s o f D e x e d r i n e , f o r which s h e p a i d him $480 i n marked c u r r e n c y , s u p p l i e d t o h e r by t h e s h e r i f f ' s office. Mrs. Langford s p e c i f i c a l l y t e s t i f i e d : Mrs. L a n g f o r d , when you f i r s t met t h e "Q. defendant, M r . Karathanos, d i d he o f f e r t o s e l l you, o r d i d you o f f e r t o buy? "A. He o f f e r e d t o s e l l . " O c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n s h e t e s t i f i e d t o t h e same t h i n g and d e n i e d n t h a t s h e f i r s t made a n o f f e r t o p u r c h a s e . Defendant now c o n t e n d s t h a t he was e n t r a p p e d i n t o comm i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e charged. agree. With t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , we c a n n o t Entrapment o c c u r s o n l y when t h e c r i m i n a l i n t e n t o r d e s i g n o r i g i n a t e s i n t h e mind o f t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r o r i n f o r m e r and n o t w i t h t h e a c c u s e d , and t h e a c c u s e d i s l u r e d o r induced i n t o committing a c r i m e h e had no i n t e n t i o n o f committing. Only when t h e c r i m i n a l d e s i g n o r i g i n a t e s , n o t w i t h t h e a c c u s e d , b u t i n t h e mind o f government o f f i c e r s and t h e accused i s by p e r s u a s i o n , d e c e i t f u l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , o r inducement, l u r e d i n t o t h e commission o f a c r i m i n a l a c t , can a c a s e o f entrapment b e made out. I n s h o r t , t h e r e i s a c o n t r o l l i n g d i s t i n c t i o n between i n - d u c i n g a person t o do a n u n l a w f u l a c t and s e t t i n g a t r a p t o c a t c h him i n t h e e x e c u t i o n o f a c r i m i n a l d e s i g n o f h i s own conception. The f a c t t h a t t h e Yellowstone County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e a f f o r d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o r f a c i l i t y f o r t h e commission o f t h e o f f e n s e , does n o t come w i t h i n t h e entrapment r u l e . In t h i s c l a s s o f o f f e n s e s , u s u a l l y committed s e c r e t l y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t i f n o t almost impossible t o s e c u r e t h e evidence necessary t o convict by any o t h e r means t h a n by t h e u s e of d e c o y s . C e r t a i n l y , t h e r e a c a n be no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e i r u s e i f t h e o f f i c e r s do n o t by p e r s u a s i o n , d e c e i t f u l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o r inducement, l u r e a $ p e r s o n who o t h e r w i s e would n o t be l i k e l y t o b r e a k t h e law, i n t o a criminal a c t . S t a t e v. Wong Hip Chung, 74 Mont. 523, 241 P. 620; S t a t e v . P a r r , 129 Mont. 175, 283 P.2d 1086; 22 C . J . S . 137, $ 5 F i n a l l y , we c o n s i d e r t h e u s e o f t h e e l e c t r o n i c t r a n s m i t t e r a s a n i n c i d e n t of t h e claimed e n t r a p m e n t . This device was used by t h e s h e r i f f f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f h i s employee, Mrs. L a n g f o r d . The t a p e was n o t used a t t h e t r i a l ; t h e r e f o r e , d e f e n d a n t was i n no manner p r e j u d i c e d by i t s u s e . I n United S t a t e s v . James A . White, 91 S.Ct. , U.S. -9 28 L ed 2d 453, t h e view was e x p r e s s e d t h a t p o l i c e e a v e s d r o p p i n g on c o n v e r s a t i o n s between a n a c c u s e d and a n i n f o r m a n t by means o f a r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r c o n c e a l e d on t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p e r s o n , does n o t v i o l a t e t h e F o u r t h Amendment of t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n any more t h a n does a n i n f o r m a n t r e p o r t i n g on o r s e c r e t l y r e c o r d i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s . There was no e n t r a p m e n t . F i n d i n g no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , we a £ f i r m t h e j u d g m e n f ) of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Hon. Frank E. B l a i r , s i t t i n g i n place of Associate J u s t i c e lJesley C a s t l e s . / //'\~h/ief Justice Associate J u s t i c e s .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.