ICJI 1513

ICJI 1513 ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

You have heard evidence [e.g., that a state agent persuaded the defendant to sell the drugs and he had never previously sold drugs]. To consider this evidence, you need to understand a legal term that we call "entrapment." Even though the defendant may have [e.g. sold the drugs] as charged by the state, if it was the result of entrapment then you must find the defendant not guilty. Law enforcement officials entrapped the defendant if three things occurred:

1. The idea for committing the crime came from an agent of the state and not from the defendant.

2. The state agent(s) then persuaded or talked the defendant into committing the crime. Merely giving the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading the defendant to commit the crime.

3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the law enforcement officials spoke with the defendant. Consider all of the facts when you decide whether the defendant would have been ready and willing to commit the crime without the actions of the state agent(s).

If, from all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was entrapped into committing the offense, you must find the defendant not guilty.

Comment

This instruction is a summary of the three instructions on entrapment upheld in State v. Hansen, 105 Idaho 816, 673 P.2d 416 (1983). It should be given only if the defendant has produced "some substantial evidence" supporting the defense of entrapment.