Ala. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 13A-3-31

Entrapment Defense

One of the issues in this case is the defense of entrapment.

Entrapment is the inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated by

him/her, for the mere purpose of instituting crimina l prosecution against him/her. Griffith

v. State, 47 Ala. App. 378, 255 So. 2d 48 (Ala. Crim. App. 1971), cert. denied, 287 Ala.

735, 255 So. 2d 52 (Ala. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1042, 92 S. Ct. 1317, 31 L. Ed.

2d 583 (1972).]

Entrapment occurs when an officer or person under his/her control incites,

induces, lures, or instigates a person into committing a criminal of fense, which that

person would not have otherwise committed and h ad no intention of committing. The

defense of entrapment is not applicable where the officer merely affords an opportunity

to one intending to violate the law. Tyson v. State , 361 So. 2d 1 182 (Ala. Crim. App.

1978).]

To convict, the State, in addition to the elements of the crime charged, must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the alleged

crime, the defendant was not incited, induced, lured, or instigated by a law enforcement

officer or by a person acting under a law enforcement officer’s control to commit a

criminal offense which the defendant otherwise would not have committed and which

the defendant had no intention of committing.

The defense of entrapment does not apply if the defendant was p redisposed to

commit the crime. In order for entrapment to occur, the law enforcement officer or

person acting under a law enforcement officer’s control must actually implant the

criminal design in the mind of the defendant, who was not pr edisposed to commit the

crime.

[Read if applicable] - An officer, acting in good faith, may use deception, trickery

or artifice to detect crime. Johnson v. State, 36 Ala. App. 634, 61 So. 2d 867 (Ala. Crim.

App. 1952).]