Back in May, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment in an online solicitation of a minor case. Entrapment isn’t exactly a common defense (as Jeff noted here). When it comes up, it’s often in drug cases, but it can also arise in computer solicitation cases where law enforcement officers pretend to be underage. State v. Keller, ___ N.C. App. ___, 828 S.E.2d 578 (May 21, 2019), review allowed, ___ N.C. ___ (August 14, 2019), is an example of such a case and appears to be the second reported decision dealing directly with the defense in this context, so I wanted to flag it for readers. Fair warning, this post recounts some of the sexually graphic discussions at issue in the case. Entrapment Basics. Let’s start with the fundamentals: “The defense of entrapment is available when there are acts of persuasion, trickery, or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or their agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime and when the origin of the criminal intent lies with the law enforcement agencies.” Id. at 7 (citation omitted). It is the defendant’s burden to offer credible evidence supporting the defense—that is, that the government induced the defendant to commit the crime and that the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to commit the crime. See Rubin, John, The Entrapment Defense in North Carolina, § 6(a), at 78 (2001). A court may find entrapment as a [...]
Faculty Coordinators
