State v. Doran
Ohio Supreme Court
5 Ohio St. 3d 187 (1983)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
William Doran (defendant) picked up a hitchhiker, Nona Wilson, who was being paid to introduce undercover agents to prospective drug dealers. In response to a question, Doran stated he did not deal in drugs. Over the next several weeks, Wilson convinced Doran to obtain drugs for Wilson to sell by telling him she needed money to regain custody of her children, was considering kidnapping her children, needed money for an apartment and clothes for her children, could avoid prostitution by repaying a gambling debt, and needed money to get married and start anew. Doran participated in six drug buys. An undercover agent posing as a friend of Wilson’s provided the money for the purchases. The last three buys were conducted solely between Doran and the undercover agent. Doran was convicted on trafficking charges for the three buys conducted without Wilson. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and held that the trial court’s failure to describe entrapment as an affirmative defense was not prejudicial. Doran appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Celebrezze, C.J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
