EDWARD ANGLIN v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
February 5, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1997-CA-003257-MR
EDWARD ANGLIN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JULIA HYLTON ADAMS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 97-CR-000087
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
**
BEFORE:
**
**
**
**
BUCKINGHAM, MCANULTY, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Edward Anglin brings this appeal from a December
11, 1997 judgment of the Madison Circuit Court.
We affirm.
In September 1997, the Madison County Grand Jury
indicted appellant with the offenses of trafficking in marijuana,
(Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS) 218A.1421), possession of marijuana (KRS
218A.1422), possession of drug paraphernalia (KRS 218A.500), and
for being a persistent felony offender, second degree (KRS
532.080).
A jury trial ensued wherein appellant was found guilty
of the above offenses and of being a second-degree persistent
felony offender.
imprisonment.
The court sentenced appellant to ten years'
This appeal followed.
Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the
circuit court erred by not tendering to the jury an instruction
on the defense of entrapment.
It is well established that the
court has a duty to instruct the jury in writing upon the law of
the case.
Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 9.54, and Russell v.
Commonwealth, Ky. App., 720 S.W.2d 347 (1986).
A defendant,
however, is not entitled to the defense of entrapment if he is
otherwise disposed to commit the offense.
See Commonwealth v.
Sanders, Ky., 736 S.W.2d 338 (1987), and Johnson v. Commonwealth,
Ky. App., 554 S.W.2d 401 (1977).
In Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky.,
555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (1977), the Court held that “in order for the
defense [of entrapment] to be raised, so as to call for an
instruction placing the burden on the Commonwealth, there must be
something in the evidence reasonably sufficient to support a
doubt based on the defense in question . . . .”
In the case sub judice, it appears that an informant
went to appellant's home, asked to buy marijuana, and was sold
same by appellant.
Appellant points out that the informant was
his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend and believed the informant had an
ulterior motive for participating in the “sting operation.”
Regardless, appellant maintains that he was not predisposed to
commit the crime of trafficking in marijuana.
He states that he
did nothing to solicit the sale to the informant and that he was
“rousted from all but peaceful slumber on his couch in the middle
of the night . . . .”
Appellant contends that the idea of
-2-
trafficking in marijuana originated not with him but with the
informant and the Richmond Police Department's Narcotics Unit.
As such, appellant believes he was entitled to an instruction on
the defense of entrapment.
We disagree.
The evidence indicated that the informant simply went
to appellant's home and asked to buy a marijuana cigarette.
At
that time, appellant sold the informant a marijuana cigarette and
received remuneration for the transaction.
The evidence does not
suggest any undue influence or coercion on the part of the
informant or the police.
In the case sub judice, we are of the
opinion that there simply does not exist reasonably sufficient
evidence to support an instruction upon the defense of
entrapment.
Id.
Hence, we do not believe the circuit court
erred in this instance.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit
court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Jimmy Dale Williams
Richmond, KY
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
and
Dennis W. Shepherd
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, KY
-3-
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.
