11 WAPRAC WPIC 18.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 18.05 (4th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
October 2016 Update
Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 18. Miscellaneous Defenses
WPIC 18.05 Entrapment—Defense
Entrapment is a defense to a charge of(fill in crime)if the criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and the defendant was lured or induced to commit a crime that the defendant had not otherwise intended to commit.
The defense is not established if the law enforcement officials did no more than afford the defendant an opportunity to commit a crime. The use of a reasonable amount of persuasion to overcome reluctance does not constitute entrapment.
The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that it is more probably true than not true. If you find that the defendant has established this defense, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge].
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction when the defense of entrapment is in issue.
For bribery cases, see the Comment.
The burden is on the defendant to prove the defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1, 921 P.2d 1035 (1996); State v. Trujillo, 75 Wn.App. at 917 (in order to be entitled to an entrapment instruction, “a defendant must present evidence which would be sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the defendant has established the defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.”)
The law of entrapment in bribery cases requires special analysis. See State v. O'Neill, 91 Wn.App. 978, 967 P.2d 985 (1998), and State v. Berry, 200 Wash. 495, 93 P.2d 782 (1939).
The defense of entrapment is not available in civil administrative proceedings. Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 168 Wn.App. 388, 399, 288 P.3d 343, 348 (2012).
[Current as of December 2015.]
Westlaw. © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
|End of Document|