The defendant was indicted for possession of heroin with intent to distribute it. He raised the defense of entrapment. The prosecution in its case in chief called an undercover drug agent who testified that, on July 1, he bought three ounces of heroin from the defendant. The defendant was the only witness for the defense. He admitted possession of heroin, but on the issue of his intent to distribute it, the defendant testified that he had no intention of selling heroin. After the defendant introduced evidence concerning the methods used by the agent to induce the defendant to sell him heroin, the prosecution called the agent in rebuttal. The agent testified that the defendant had also offered on April 1 to sell him heroin. The trial judge should rule that evidence:
A. Admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility.
B. Admissible on the issue of the defendant’s propensity to sell heroin.
C. Inadmissible unless the defendant was convicted of a crime as the result of the April 1 incident.
D. Inadmissible because it is evidence of a specific act rather than evidence of opinion or reputation.
{ 13 comments }
