What is the test for a defendant to prove that they were entrapped into committing the crime?

'When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed. [Citations.]' (People v. Contrerai, 172 Cal.App.2d 369, 371, 341 P.2d 849, 851.)

Page 128

Defendant Head contends he was entrapped into committing the crime as charged in Count I of the indictment. We find no merit in this contention. 'Entrapment is an affirmative defense imposing upon the accused the burden of proving that he was induced to commit the crime of which he is charged, and the existence or nonexistence of entrapment is a question of fact for the trier of fact who is the sole judge of the weight and worth of the evidence. [Citations.]' (People v. Castro, 167 Cal.App.2d 332, 337, 334 P.2d 602, 605.)

Defendant further urges in his brief that entrapment was shown as a matter of law.

[208 Cal.App.2d 366] 'Entrapment as a matter of law is not established where there is any substantial evidence in the record from which it may be inferred that the criminal intent to commit the particular offense originated in the mind of the accused. [Citation.]' (People v. Terry, 44 Cal.2d 371, 372, 282 P.2d 19, 20.)