What is the test for determining whether there was entrapment as a matter of law?

Dr. Vo first contends there was entrapment as a matter of law. While case law concedes the possibility of such a finding by an appellate court, it would be a rare result indeed. (People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 684-685, 189 Cal.Rptr. 879.)

The defense of entrapment presents a question for the jury. (People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 691, fn. 6, 153 Cal.Rptr. 459, 591 P.2d [213 Cal.App.3d 694] 947.) An appellate court will only find entrapment as a matter of law where the evidence is so compelling and uncontradicted the jury could draw no other reasonable inference. The conduct of law enforcement agents must either generate in a normally law-abiding person a motive for the crime other than ordinary criminal intent or make commission of the crime unusually attractive to such a person. (People v. Barraza, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 690, 153 Cal.Rptr. 459, 591 P.2d 947; People v. Kelley (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1085, 1100-1101, 205 Cal.Rptr. 283.)