PEOPLE OF MI V EARL CANTRELL CARRUTHERS (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED December 15, 2015 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 319991 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2013-245268-FH EARL CANTRELL CARRUTHERS, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 319992 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2013-245250-FH RYAN TINSLEY CARRUTHERS, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 319993 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2013-245247-FH DERRICK SHOMARI HOLOMAN, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 319994 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2013-245261-FH VERTRECE LEO SHEPARD WELLS, -1- Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 319995 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2013-245248-FH DEONTE PIERRE ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 319996 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2013-245249-FH SHERALYN MEDIANTE GEER, Defendant-Appellee. Before: SAAD, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and SHAPIRO, JJ. M. J. KELLY, J. (concurring). I concur fully with the lead opinion. I write separately, however, to clarify two points: I do not understand the majority opinion to foreclose the possibility that a defendant might be able to establish a defense of entrapment even though that person does not have any direct interaction with a police officer, see People v Matthews, 143 Mich App 45; 371 NW2d 887 (1985); I also do not understand the majority opinion to foreclose the possibility that an otherwise law-abiding person might be induced to commit a crime by an officer’s efforts to convince the person that he or she would be immune from prosecution. Here, the undisputed evidence showed that defendants were engaged in criminal conduct involving marijuana before any officer became involved. See Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1, 15; 846 NW2d 531 (2014) (noting that the possession, manufacture, and delivery of marijuana remains illegal in this state). They may have done so under the mistaken belief that they would be immune from prosecution, but they nevertheless engaged in criminal acts. See People v Koon, 494 Mich 1, 5; 832 NW2d 724 (2013) (stating that the Medical Marijuana Act provides immunity from prosecution for otherwise criminal acts). Because the evidence showed that the officer did not induce defendants—directly or indirectly—to engage in criminal conduct by convincing them that they would be immune from prosecution, but instead merely complied -2- with defendants’ existing scheme for the unlawful sale and delivery of marijuana, this case does not rise to the level of entrapment. See People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498; 647 NW2d 480 (2002). /s/ Michael J. Kelly -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.
