entrapment instruction in North Carolina

2020The Court explained that “the entrapment defense is not inconsistent with the defense of lack of mental state since the defense of entrapment itself is an assertion that it was the will of the government, and not of the defendant, which spawned the commission of the offense.” Id.

2020A defendant may only contest this type of mental state alongside an entrapment defense because, as the Neville Court explained, to claim entrapment is essentially to claim “that it was the will of the government, and not of the defendant, which spawned the commission of the offense.” Id. (emphasis added).

2019App. 56, 61 , 381 S.E.2d 827, 830 (1989) (“[A] defendant who denies an essential element which deals with intent but who admits committing the acts underlying the offense with which he is charged may employ an entrapment defense.” (emphasis added)).

2019App. 56 , 61, 381 S.E.2d 827 , 830 (1989) ("[A] defendant who denies an essential element which deals with intent but who admits committing the acts underlying the offense with which he is charged may employ an entrapment defense ." (emphasis added)).

2014However, the entrapment defense is not available to a defendant who has a “predisposition to commit the crime independent of governmental inducement and influence.” State v. Hageman, 307 N.C. 1, 29 , 296 S.E.2d 433, 449 (1982).

2014However, the entrapment defense is not available to a defendant who has a “predisposition to commit the crime independent of governmental inducement and influence.” State v. Hageman, 307 N.C. 1, 29 , 296 S.E.2d 433, 449 (1982).

2021Cf. State v. Keller, 374 N.C. 637 , 647, 843 S.E.2d 58 , 65-66 (2020) (A defendant who “claims he has not done an act” is not entitled to an entrapment instruction because he cannot simultaneously “claim that the government induced him to do that act.”); see also State v. Peterson, 24 N.C.

2021Cf. State v. Keller, 374 N.C. 637 , 647, 843 S.E.2d 58 , 65-66 (2020) (A defendant who “claims he has not done an act” is not entitled to an entrapment instruction because he cannot simultaneously “claim that the government induced him to do that act.”); see also State v. Peterson, 24 N.C.

2020Id. at 579 , 295 S.E.2d at 428 .

2020Id. at 579 , 295 S.E.2d at 428 .

2012The entrapment defense consists of two elements: “(1) acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or their agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime, [and] (2) when the criminal design originated in the minds of the government officials, rather than with the innocent defendant, such that the crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement authorities.” State v. Walker, 295 N.C. 510, 513 , 246 S.E.2d 748, 750 (1978) (citing- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958)).

2012The entrapment defense consists of two elements: “(1) acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or their agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime, [and] (2) when the criminal design originated in the minds of the government officials, rather than with the innocent defendant, such that the crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement authorities.” State v. Walker, 295 N.C. 510, 513 , 246 S.E.2d 748, 750 (1978) (citing- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958)).

2019This Court has previously held a defendant presented evidence sufficient to merit an entrapment instruction where, according to his testimony, he first expressed disinterest in committing the criminal act but was later induced by acts of law enforcement that “involved emotional manipulation[,] including creating a false relationship and then taking advantage of the defendant’s desire to maintain that relationship.” Foster, 235 N.C.

2019This Court has previously held a defendant presented evidence sufficient to merit an entrapment instruction where, according to his testimony, he first expressed disinterest in committing the criminal act but was later induced by acts of law enforcement that "involved emotional manipulation[,] including creating a false relationship and then taking advantage of the defendant's desire to maintain that relationship." Foster , 235 N.C.

2012“Before a Trial Court can submit [the entrapment defense] to the jury there must be some credible evidence tending to support the defendant’s contention that he was a victim of entrapment, as that term is known to the law.” State v. Burnette, 242 N.C. 164, 173 , 87 S.E.2d 191, 197 (1955) (emphasis added).

2012“Before a Trial Court can submit [the entrapment defense] to the jury there must be some credible evidence tending to support the defendant’s contention that he was a victim of entrapment, as that term is known to the law.” State v. Burnette, 242 N.C. 164, 173 , 87 S.E.2d 191, 197 (1955) (emphasis added).

2012A defendant must prove two elements to warrant an entrapment instruction: “ ‘(1) law enforcement officers or their agents engaged in acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud to induce the defendant to commit a crime, and (2) the criminal design originated in the minds of those officials, rather than with the defendant.’ ” State v. Branham, 153 N.C.

2012App. 91, 100 , 569 S.E.2d 24, 29 (2002) (citation omitted).

2015See, e.g., State v. Carr, 145 N.C.

2013App. 82, 88 , 523 S.E.2d 448, 453 (1999) (noting that where the defendant failed to request an entrapment instruction at trial, he must show the trial court’s failure to so instruct amounted to plain error).

2013“Entrapment is the inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated by him, for the mere purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution against him.” State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 27 , 215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) (citation and quotations omitted).

2013“Entrapment is the inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated by him, for the mere purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution against him.” State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 27 , 215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) (citation and quotations omitted).

2009See State v. Cook, 263 N.C. 730, 733 , 140 S.E.2d 305, 308 (1965) (noting that the trial court’s instruction, which placed the burden of disproving entrapment upon the State, was error).

2009See State v. Cook, 263 N.C. 730, 733 , 140 S.E.2d 305, 308 (1965) (noting that the trial court’s instruction, which placed the burden of disproving entrapment upon the State, was error).

2004See Leech, 66 P.3d at 991 (Johnson, P.J., concurring) (observing that “[t]he justice system should look with a jaundiced eye upon reverse sting operations”).

1982See State v. Jackson, 243 N.C. 216 , 90 S.E. 2d 507 (1955); State v. Burnette, supra. Entrapment, as a defense to criminal conduct, applies to crimes whether or not want of consent is an element of the offense and arises out of actions of law enforcement authorities or their agents.

1982See State v. Jackson, 243 N.C. 216 , 90 S.E. 2d 507 (1955); State v. Burnette, supra. Entrapment, as a defense to criminal conduct, applies to crimes whether or not want of consent is an element of the offense and arises out of actions of law enforcement authorities or their agents.