Striplin v. State , 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 553 ( 1972 )

BUSSEY, J.,

specially concurring:

While I agree that the case must be reversed, I believe the issue of entrapment is one to be resolved by the jury under proper instructions as was given in the instant case; however, I agree that the failure of the trial court to grant a continuance in order that the defendant could subpoena Crawford and Dayton was an abuse of discretion since their testimony was vital to the issue of entrapment, and under testimony of Officer McDonald they were acting as de facto agents of the State of Oklahoma.