Legal Opinion

State v. Mata

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1984No. 13911PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURNETT, Judge.

Carlos Mata stands convicted of delivering marijuana and heroin. His appeal raises two general issues concerning the heroin charge. (1) Did the state entrap Mata into delivering the heroin? (2) Did the trial court err by limiting testimony regarding events after the heroin transaction, and by ruling that alibi testimony would be inadmissible? For reasons explained below, we hold that Mata was not entrapped and that the district court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on trial testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

I

First, we consider the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Sorrells v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. Sherman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  4. Hampton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. People v. BarrazaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. PierceIdaho Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. State v. KopsaIdaho Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Suits v. Idaho Board of Professional DisciplineIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  4. State v. CaneloIdaho Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Gee v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 1990

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API