Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.7-4

The evidence in this case raises the issue of the defense of entrapment. The statute defining

entrapment reads in pertinent part as follows:

in any prosecution for an offense, it shall be a defense that the defendant engaged in

the proscribed conduct because (he/she) was induced to do so by a public servant, or

by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant, for the purpose of institution

of criminal prosecution against the defendant, and that the defendant did not

contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in such conduct.

Entrapment exists only if the defendant was not predisposed to committing the crime at issue. If

the criminal intent or the willing disposition to commit the crime originates in the mind of the

defendant and the criminal offense is completed, it is no defense that the opportunity is furnished

or the defendant is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence

necessary to prosecute the defendant. On the other hand, it is entrapment if the criminal design

originates in the mind of the government agent or police officer and the defendant is induced into

the commission of the offense when the defendant would not have committed it except for the

urging of the officer or government agent.

The vital factor in determining if there has been an entrapment is whether the defendant was

induced by the urging of a governmental agent or police officer to commit a crime that the

defendant would not otherwise have committed. Inducement means more than a simple request

by a government agent or police officer to break the law. There is a clear distinction between

inducing a person to commit a crime and setting the stage to catch that person in the execution of

criminal designs of the person’s own volition. If officers of the law induce an innocent person to

commit a crime that that person would not otherwise commit, it is entrapment and a defense to

the crime charged.

It is for you to determine, on the basis of all the evidence, whether the state has proved beyond a

reasonable doubt that it did not induce the defendant to commit the offense with which the

defendant is charged. If you unanimously find that the state has proved all the elements of the

crime of <insert name of offense> beyond a reasonable doubt, and has disproved the claim of

entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of guilty on this count. If you

unanimously find that the state has failed to prove any one or more of the elements of the crime

of <insert name of offense>, or failed to disprove the claim of entrapment, you must return a

verdict of not guilty on this count.