What is the burden of proving an affirmative defense of entrapment by a preponderance?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Amata, 270 Cal.App.2d 575, 75 Cal.Rptr. 860 (Cal. App. 1969):
The trial judge properly refused to instruct to the effect that after some evidence on the issue of entrapment has been brought forward, the People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was pre-existing intent on the part of appellants. The defendants had the burden of proving their affirmative defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Valverde, 246 Cal.App.2d 318, 325--326, 54 Cal.Rptr. 528.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
