A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).

NO. COA01-1551

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 6 August 2002

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Forsyth County
                                Nos. 00 CRS 54126-27
                                    01 CRS 58
TAURUS ANTHONY DAVIS

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 16 August 2001 by Judge Clarence W. Carter in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 July 2002.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Marvin R. Waters, for the State.

    Haakon Thorsen, for defendant-appellant.

    BIGGS, Judge.

    Defendant appeals from his conviction of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, delivery of cocaine, and conspiracy to sell and deliver cocaine. He also pled guilty to habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive prison terms of 90 to 117 months. We find no error.
    The State presented evidence tending to show the following: on 8 August 2000, Officers J.E. Bowman and L.L. Sims of the Winston-Salem Police Department engaged in an undercover “buy bust” operation in the city. The two officers approached a woman sitting in a chair at the curb in front of a duplex apartment building located at 314 East 14th Street. The officers asked the woman whether she had anything for sale. She responded by asking themwhat they needed. The officers replied, “a twenty,” meaning a rock of crack cocaine worth twenty dollars. The woman then motioned to a man standing on the porch of the duplex apartment building. The man, whom the officers identified as defendant, walked down and joined the lady at the curb. A second lady, subsequently identified as Doris Ford, joined them. Defendant pulled out a small tissue from his waistband and handed it to Ms. Ford. Ms. Ford then handed Officer Bowman a piece of a substance subsequently identified as crack cocaine. Officer Bowman gave Ms. Ford a twenty dollar bill. Ms. Ford then handed the money and the remainder of the substance to defendant.
    Defendant did not present any evidence and brings forward two assignments of error. First, he contends the trial court erred by refusing his request for an instruction on entrapment. He argues the instruction is supported by the following testimony of Ms. Ford: “My true opinion _ my true opinion was [the lady in the chair] was setting us up. That's my true opinion, for real.”
    "[A] defendant must first present credible evidence tending to support a defense of entrapment before a trial court may submit the question to a jury." State v. Thompson, 141 N.C. App. 698, 706, 543 S.E.2d 160, 165 (2001) (quoting State v. Walker, 295 N.C. 510, 513, 246 S.E.2d 748, 749-50 (1978)). "Entrapment is the inducement of a person to commit a criminal offense not contemplated by that person for the mere purpose of instituting a criminal action against him." State v. Davis, 126 N.C. App. 415, 417-18, 485 S.E.2d 329, 331 (1997). "To establish the defense of entrapment,two elements must be shown: 1) law enforcement officers or their agents engaged in acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud to induce the defendant to commit the crime; and (2) the criminal design originated in the minds of those officials, rather than with the defendant." Id.
    In the present case, there is no evidence that the law enforcement officers employed acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud to induce defendant to commit a crime which he was not otherwise disposed to commit. The evidence is uncontradicted that the officers simply asked to purchase cocaine from the lady seated at the curb. This assignment of error is overruled.
    Secondly, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to sequester the State's witnesses. A motion to sequester witnesses is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, whose ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that the decision was so arbitrary it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. State v. Call, 349 N.C. 382, 508 S.E.2d 496 (1998). This showing is not made. This assignment of error is also overruled.
    We hold defendant received a fair trial, free of error.
    No error.
    Judges WALKER and THOMAS concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***