State v. Goodroad ( 1989 )

SABERS, Justice

(specially concurring).

The defendant has the burden of proof of establishing entrapment as a defense to the crime. Defendant must show police inducement and no predisposition to commit the crime. In determining predisposition, the facts surrounding the transaction are relevant. State v. Moeller, 388 N.W.2d 872 (S.D.1986), aff'd on rehearing, 396 N.W.2d 320 (S.D.1986) (Moeller I). Evidence of prior drug dealings with Feeney are clearly admissible despite the statement in the majority (citing State v. Nelsen, 89 S.D. 1, 9, 228 N.W.2d 143, 148 (1975)), that:

We recognize that a defendant’s previously committing similar crimes, reputation of being engaged in the commission of such crimes, or being suspected by the police of criminal activities is not admissible on the issue of entrapment.

The evidence of prior drug dealing with Feeney was relevant, material, and part of the facts surrounding the charged transaction. This evidence was highly relevant and material to the issue of entrapment and predisposition to commit the crime as raised by the defendant. There is no need to consider the “independent grounds” of “prior bad acts” under SDCL 19-12-5 or to strain to admit them thereunder.

I am authorized to state that MILLER, J., joins this special concurrence.