Entrapment

Entrapment is an affirmative defense. This means that the defendant has the burden of proving it by, a preponderance of evidence. That means, by the greater weight of believable evidence. A preponderance means evidence that is more probable, more persuasive, or of a greater probative value. By that is meant that the evidence introduced on behalf of the defendant must weigh more heavily in jurors minds and be more convincing than that introduced on behalf of the State. It does not mean that the defendant must have more witnesses than the State. The burden of proof is sustained by the quality of the evidence rather than the quantity.

The law authorizes law enforcement officers to use stealth and strategy, decoys, traps and deception as a tactic to outwit and catch those engaged in criminal enterprise. But the law does not authorize a law enforcement officer whether by (himself/herself) or through an agent or informant, or together with others to trap another person by inducing or encouraging (him/her) to commit an offense and then as a direct result of that inducement or encouragement, cause that other person to commit an offense.

Therefore, to establish entrapment as a defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that a law enforcement officer (either by (himself/herself) or through an agent or informant, or together with others) did induce or encourage the defendant to commit the crime(s), and as a direct result thereof, (he/she) did cause the defendant to commit the offense(s) charged.

The defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that (he/she) was induced or encouraged to commit the offense by the law enforcement officers (the officer's agent or informant, or others)  or knowing false representations which by their very nature created a substantial risk that the crime would be committed by an average person who was NOT otherwise ready to commit it.
In addition, the defendant must prove that the police conduct in fact caused (him/her) to commit the crime; in other words, that the crime was a direct result of the police action.

(Where the State introduces evidence of the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime, the jury will consider the following as well)

The State would introduce evidence to demonstrate, if believed, that the defendant was not an innocent person who would not have committed the offense were it not for the inducement of the law enforcement officer. That in fact (he/she) was predisposed to commit the crime. Therefore, for this purpose, the Court may permit the State to introduce for the jury's consideration the following:

evidence of the defendant's previous convictions of crime; (his/her) reputation for criminal activities; evidence that (he/she) was unusually susceptible to inducement, or that an ordinary person would not have succumbed to the type of inducement or opportunity to commit the offense to which the defendant succumbed.

Whether such evidence along with other facts and surrounding circumstances, shows a predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the offense is for the jury to determine.

If a jury finds that the defendant had been predisposed to commit the offense even without the law enforcement officer's participation or inducement, then the defendant's participation was not the direct result of the officer's activity, and the defense of entrapment has not been proven and it is unavailable to (him/her).