Stewart v. State

Stewart, the appellant, was convicted of having possession and control of narcotics. He argues that the evidence showed that, as a matter of law, he had been entrapped, that he was not a principal, only an agent whose possession and control were those of the principal, a federal narcotic officer, and that incriminating statements he made were inadmissible because uttered while he was in custody after an illegal arrest.

' A federal narcotics agent named Notel and an informer drove to Eutaw Place, Baltimore, where appellant, whom they knew *321as a previous offender, was found. The agent asked…