287 U.S. 335 (1932)
Defendant Sorrells was indicted on two counts for possessing and selling one-half gallon of whiskey on July 13, 1930, in violation of the National Prohibition Act.1 He pleaded not guilty and at trial relied on the defense of entrapment.2
Prohibition agent Martin visited Sorrells' home near Canton, North Carolina, on Sunday, July 13, 1930, accompanied by three local residents who knew Sorrells.3 Posing as an ex-service man and furniture dealer from Charlotte, Martin asked Sorrells multiple times to obtain liquor, eventually succeeding after invoking their shared World War experiences in the 30th Division; Sorrells returned with a half gallon for which Martin paid five dollars.4
Sorrells presented testimony from the three companions corroborating the repeated requests and his initial refusals, along with evidence of his steady employment since March 1924 and good character from multiple neighbors.5 The government offered rebuttal testimony that Sorrells had a reputation as a rum-runner, but introduced no evidence of any prior liquor transactions by him.6
The trial court denied a motion for directed verdict, refused to submit the entrapment issue to the jury, and ruled as a matter of law that there was no entrapment.7 Following a guilty verdict, the court sentenced Sorrells to eighteen months' imprisonment, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.8
The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question whether the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury upon the issue of entrapment.9
Whether the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury upon the issue of entrapment?10
The defense of entrapment is available when government officials implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute. The statute should not be construed to reach conduct that is the creature of official instigation rather than the defendant's own criminal design.11
Yes. The established facts show that prohibition agent Martin made repeated requests for liquor to defendant Sorrells after initial refusals. He succeeded only after invoking their shared World War service in the 30th Division. Sorrells had steady employment since March 1924, good character from multiple neighbors, and no evidence of any prior liquor transactions. This confirms that the criminal design originated with the government official who lured an otherwise law-abiding citizen.12
The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury upon the issue of entrapment, and the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issue.13
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brandeis And Justice Stone
Justice Roberts concurred in reversing the judgment but rejected the majority's reliance on statutory construction.14 He maintained that entrapment rests on public policy protecting the purity of government processes rather than statutory construction.15 The court alone must decide whether to stop the prosecution regardless of the stage at which the facts appear.16
Submission to the jury for advice does not shift the ultimate power and duty from the court to quash the indictment and discharge the defendant.17 Recognition of the defense as a jury question under the general issue results in trying a false issue that diverts from the court's duty to refuse its processes to government-created crimes.18
Whether the defense of entrapment, if available, should have been pleaded in bar to further proceedings under the indictment and could not be raised under the plea of not guilty?19
The defense of entrapment is not a special plea in bar analogous to pardon or former jeopardy. It may be raised under a plea of not guilty because it demonstrates that the government cannot be permitted to contend the defendant is guilty of an offense that its own officials instigated. This takes the case outside the intended purview of the statute.20
No. The established facts demonstrate that the defense goes directly to whether Sorrells committed an offense within the meaning of the National Prohibition Act. The act was induced by the prohibition agent's repeated solicitations. The defense is properly presented under the general plea of not guilty rather than requiring a preliminary plea in bar.21
The defense of entrapment may be raised under the plea of not guilty.22
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brandeis And Justice Stone
Justice Roberts contended that once entrapment is shown the court must stop the prosecution by discharging the prisoner on habeas corpus, quashing the indictment, or entertaining a plea in bar.23 The power remains exclusively with the court even if the entrapment issue is submitted to the jury for advice.24 Treating entrapment as a jury defense under the general issue creates a false issue that diverts attention from the court's duty to refuse its processes to an abhorrent government-created crime.25