On July 29, 2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was a part of a decoy operation with an undercover arrest team ; he was dressed on black jeans, a dirty short- sleeved flannel shirt on top of a dirty-t shirt, and a baseball cap to apart as a drunk homeless man . Detective Leavitt carried Twenty one-dollar bills in his breast pocket, to attract a thief. Leavitt was on the block of 200 Main St across from the Greyhound station. The Appellant Richard Miller approached Detective Leavitt on this very street to ask him for money. Detective Leavitt told Miller he was not going to give him an money, Leavitt testified that the appellant put his arm around him and asked him to go get a drink. While doing so Miller took Detective Leavitt twenty dollars, and proceeded to ask him for the money again; but Leavitt told Miller once again no but this time because it was gone. The undercover arrest time pulled up to the scene and took the appellant into custody, he was charged with larceny. Procedural history: Miller was given a two day trial, where he was convicted by the jury. Miller was sentenced to a maximum of 32 months, and a minimum of 12 months in prison. Miller appealed his conviction claiming that he was “entrapped”, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. Issue: Was …show more content…
State, where the female decoy was robbed. The court determined that the defendant in that case was not entrapped because stole the money from her zipped up purse. However, that case is separated from this case because of the condition that decoy was appeared to be in. The court held that the opportunity Miller was given to commit a crime was not improper; he had a choice not to take the money but he did. The court also denied Miller claim of police misconduct, they found Leavitt did not con Miller into stealing the money. Detective Leavitt was standing on the block with the bill barely showing; Miller approached