State v. McDaniel

Under ORS 161,055(1) the defense of entrapment has two elements that the state must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant did not intend to perform the proscribed conduct, and that the defendant would not have otherwise engaged in the proscribed conduct.

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, arguing that the state did not disprove his defense of entrapment because the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to prove that he was predisposed to possessing ecstasy. Defendant replied to an advertisement on Craigslist written by an undercover police officer that explicitly offered sex in exchange for drugs. Over the course of a week of email exchanges, and after defendant had purchased both marijuana and ecstasy, the officer gave Defendant an address so they could meet. The officer was waiting in his patrol car when Defendant arrived. Defendant was searched, arrested, and charged with possession of a Schedule I controlled substance. The Court found that the state disproved Defendant’s entrapment defense because: he replied to an ad for the purpose of trading drugs for sex, he was familiar with the cost and common quantities of controlled substances, and he offered the undercover officer controlled substances that the officer had not asked for. Affirmed.