entrapment instruction in Kansas

1993Cf. State v. Farmer, 212 Kan. 163, 167-68 , 510 P.2d 180 (1973) (defendant who had admitted all elements except the element of intent entitled to entrapment instruction).

1987We held that despite inconsistent defenses,.the evidence required submission of the entrapment defense to the jury. 212 Kan. at 167 .

1983The State relies on the decision in State v. Einhorn, 213 Kan. 271 , 515 P.2d 1036 (1973), which involved an entrapment instruction.

1983The State relies on the decision in State v. Einhorn, 213 Kan. 271 , 515 P.2d 1036 (1973), which involved an entrapment instruction.

2010See L. 1969, ch. 180, sec. 21-3210; State v. Houpt, 210 Kan. 778, 780 , 504 P.2d 570 (1972); State v. Reichenberger, 209 Kan. 210, 215 , 495 P.2d 919 (1972).

2010See L. 1969, ch. 180, sec. 21-3210; State v. Houpt, 210 Kan. 778, 780 , 504 P.2d 570 (1972); State v. Reichenberger, 209 Kan. 210, 215 , 495 P.2d 919 (1972).

2010See L. 1969, ch. 180, sec. 21-3210; State v. Houpt, 210 Kan. 778, 780 , 504 P.2d 570 (1972); State v. Reichenberger, 209 Kan. 210, 215 , 495 P.2d 919 (1972).

2010See L. 1969, ch. 180, sec. 21-3210; State v. Houpt, 210 Kan. 778, 780 , 504 P.2d 570 (1972); State v. Reichenberger, 209 Kan. 210, 215 , 495 P.2d 919 (1972).

2005“In a criminal action, atrial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the defendant’s theories for which there is supporting evidence.” State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 356 , 85 P.3d 697 (2004).

2005“In a criminal action, atrial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the defendant’s theories for which there is supporting evidence.” State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 356 , 85 P.3d 697 (2004).

1993The United States Supreme Court reversed Mathews’ conviction and held, under the relevant federal statutes, “that even if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he [or she] is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment.” 485 U.S. at 62 .

1990We conclude the logic of Chae is sound; thus, we find the trial court erred in failing to set aside the conviction and in failing to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea. *453 Turning now to appellant’s second issue, that of whether the trial court erred in failing to give an entrapment instruction, we find the law regarding instructions well stated in State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629 , 740 P.2d 559 (1987): “In a criminal action, a trial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the theories of all parties where there is supporting evidence. . . .

1990We conclude the logic of Chae is sound; thus, we find the trial court erred in failing to set aside the conviction and in failing to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea. *453 Turning now to appellant’s second issue, that of whether the trial court erred in failing to give an entrapment instruction, we find the law regarding instructions well stated in State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629 , 740 P.2d 559 (1987): “In a criminal action, a trial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the theories of all parties where there is supporting evidence. . . .

1987Relying on Farmer , we implicitly adopted the rule allowing inconsistent defenses in State v. Myers, 233 Kan 611, 616, 664 P.2d 834 (1983), a compulsion case, where we held that all theories of the prosecution and the defense supported by evidence must be submitted to the jury.

1984(State v. Einhorn, 213 Kan. 271 ; State v. Farmer, 212 Kan. 163 ; State v. Fitzgibbon, 211 Kan. 553 .) The State’s argument that a plea of not guilty and the defense of entrapment are mutually exclusive would hold true in a case where the nature of any other defense asserted is such as to deny substantial involvement.

1984State v. Smith, 229 Kan. 533, 534 , 625 P.2d 1139 (1981).

1984State v. Smith, 229 Kan. 533, 534 , 625 P.2d 1139 (1981).

1984More specifically, the court relied on our decision in State v. Gasser, 223 Kan. 24 , 574 P.2d 146 (1977), stating: ‘Entrapment is a defense used to negate a defendant’s criminal intent to commit the crime for which he is charged by showing that the real criminal intent was conceived by law enforcement officials.’ [ 223 Kan. 24 , Syl. ¶ 2.] Well, it just seems, to me, that here the defendant denies any criminal intent, denies that he knew or had any reason to believe that the property was in fact stolen, and it seems that the entrapment defense would then not be available to him in that it jus

1984More specifically, the court relied on our decision in State v. Gasser, 223 Kan. 24 , 574 P.2d 146 (1977), stating: ‘Entrapment is a defense used to negate a defendant’s criminal intent to commit the crime for which he is charged by showing that the real criminal intent was conceived by law enforcement officials.’ [ 223 Kan. 24 , Syl. ¶ 2.] Well, it just seems, to me, that here the defendant denies any criminal intent, denies that he knew or had any reason to believe that the property was in fact stolen, and it seems that the entrapment defense would then not be available to him in that it jus

1981State v. Amodei, 222 Kan. 140, 142 , 563 P.2d 440 (1977).

1981State v. Amodei, 222 Kan. 140, 142 , 563 P.2d 440 (1977).