PEOPLE OF MI V DERRICK HIGGINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 6, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 220697
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-007593
DERRICK HIGGINS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cavanagh and White, JJ.
WHITE, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. While a remand to the trial court for a more complete explanation
regarding its reasons for distinguishing the two buys might be in order, I cannot, on this record, join the
conclusion that the court’s findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision to dismiss the case based
on the second buy was an abuse of discretion.
The “cooperating witness,” James King, the officer handling the witness, Detective Balthuis, and
defendant all testified before the court. The court also had transcripts of tape-recordings of
conversations between King and defendant. While King testified to numerous prior purchases of
cocaine from defendant in amounts up to a kilo, defendant testified that he obtained cocaine for King
about four times over the twenty years they knew each other, and that the amounts involved were from
one ounce to 3 ½ ounces. Defendant testified that he had conversations with King that were not taped.
He testified that when King called him in early November, he initially told King that he was not in the
drug business and that King should find someone else to obtain drugs for him. He testified that King
called him frequently, at home and at work, at all hours of the day and night. Because King sounded
like he was in trouble, and because he thought it would get King off his back, defendant agreed to try to
obtain some cocaine for King. He was, however, unsuccessful. King continued to call him, and in
February, he obtained four ounces for King, although King wanted more. King continued to call, and
defendant told him that he was not in the business and that he should not call him. Defendant did not
call King, but King resumed calling defendant, who did not return his calls. Eventually, defendant
agreed to obtain eight ounces of cocaine for King.
-1
The trial court found that King was not credible regarding the history of his dealings with
defendant. The court found that the only reason King was able to procure the cocaine was because of
his long-term relationship with defendant. The court noted that it took three months before King was
able to obtain any drugs from defendant. The court found that King kept trying to obtain a greater
quantity of cocaine from defendant, that defendant was not disposed to deal in greater quantities, and
that he was not ready and willing to deal in greater quantities and would not have done so were it not for
King’s persistent phone calls and his appeal to their friendship.
The court rejected the claim of entrapment with respect to the first transaction on the basis that
while defendant did not seem anxious to engage in the first transaction, he did appear willing based on
the tapes. It is not entirely clear on what basis the court distinguished the second transaction. However,
there was some basis to do so in the record. While the first transaction was in an amount only slightly
greater than the amount defendant conceded he had obtained for King in the past, the second
transaction was for double that amount. On the other hand, the transcripts do not reveal the reluctance
to which defendant testified or defendant’s alleged statements to King regarding his reluctance. The trial
court did not explicitly state the extent to which it accepted or rejected defendant’s account of the
transactions or the conversations. On this record, I would remand for further findings rather than
reverse and reinstate the charge.
/s/ Helene N. White
-2
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.
