California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Watson, 22 Cal.4th 220, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 990 P.2d 1031 (Cal. 2000):
The trial court was required to instruct the second jury on the defense of entrapment if, but only if, substantial evidence supported the defense. (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 685, 160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1; People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 691, 153 Cal. Rptr. 459, 591 P.2d 947 (Barraza).) In California, the test for entrapment focuses on the police conduct and is objective. Entrapment is established if the law enforcement conduct is likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. (Barraza, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 689-690, 153 Cal.Rptr. 459, 591 P.2d 947.) "[S]uch a person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. Official conduct that does no more than offer that opportunity to the suspectfor example, a decoy programis therefore permissible; but it is impermissible for the police or their agents to pressure the suspect by overbearing conduct such as badgering, cajoling, importuning, or other affirmative acts likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime." (Id. at p. 690, 153 Cal.Rptr. 459, 591 P.2d 947.)
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.