Does the entrapment defense need to be consistent with the defense presented at trial?

We reject the contention that an entrapment defense was inconsistent with the defense presented at trial. "Although the defense [of entrapment] is available to a defendant who is otherwise guilty [citation], it does not follow that the defendant must admit guilt to establish the defense. A defendant, for example, may deny that he committed every element of the crime charged, yet properly allege that such acts as he did commit were induced by law enforcement officers." (People v. Perez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 769, 775; see also Barraza, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 691-692.)