arrive to pick him up because johnston hall thomas aside and said i need you to hold something on hold on to something for me at that point if you're johnston told him i'm going to give you three bags to hold up hold on to this for me and he then off went to the fridge to grab a beer for the road and was on his way out of the door when johnson stopped him and said oh it you're going to get the stuff i asked you to hold here take this and handed mr thomas heroin in return so thomas leaves the house and before the car is wholly from the curb johnson's on the phone with officer barish tipping him off to a man leaving ten eighteen green line it's over a car with a gun and drugs the very same gun the big guns and just in my point the police pull the car over arrest thomas recovered a contraband in thomas needs a statement police admitting to possessing these and yes your honor terry thomas does have a conviction for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon in nineteen ninety five but quickly that fact was not put before the jury at trial the state settled for a stipulation that quo i'll give you sat in return for you to doing this still drip of this drug deal at that point the defendant said sure you jumped at the ten chance of getting the benefit of having sex with the inform it to have sex he does the drug deal and the second district finds that using traps as a matter of law not was handing the factory took the he took the informant up on this offer in fact it was because he sees that quid pro quo once it was going on in front of him that that this was the crowd and the same principle applies here where it's not sex for drugs or committing a good deal it's danial ing drugs the object of my points of their diction in front of him and thereby securing his is an agreement to take a gun and this issue is going predisposition whether the state ro evidence presented by the defense but my point was hesitant to take the gun first thomas testified he only took the gun because victor johnson right means doing and critically that's that satisfies  thomas was a heroin addict he knew that by virtue of that they can thomas was unlikely to resist three three bags of heroin pulled in front of the safe and also in johnson knew that he stood to make more money  that a general statement of law doesn't carry the burden of showing that my point was predisposed to have a gun on the big question when he when he took the gun solely because he and used to do so by  formants in that case if the defendant was deeply indebted and went to an informant for a loan informant said i'm not going to get your loan but you should consider dealing drugs that's a way to fake that's money and tweak those words apply with power and force in this situation thomas by virtue of his heroin addiction was particularly susceptible to the guns you would get more money i just wish to take point that out because it seems to me that what we have here is we have a situation where the villian is using his drug addiction as a means of trying because the offer was made first offer on the facts as i see them was made for the defendant to hold a certain number of packets of heroin for the defendant because he was there was no evidence of inducement presented of a trial but the state is trying to thread a pretty narrow pretty thin needle gear because there was plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this was a quid pro quo you hold on to you take these burden shifts in the state to rebut that evidence of an inducement you know in a reasonable doubt and co counsel said repeatedly if you accept defense testimony if you accept defense testimony and i acknowledge that the defense here was raised i timothy thomas this court must for some reason reject defendant's account to be a nuisance and that that argument on the by the state finds no support in the illinois authority in fact every it would only decision finding entrapment as a matter of law and there are numerous cases during still those cases those courts are relying upon the defendant's testimony of the inducement and finding the state failed to rebut it beyond a reasonable doubt after all that's that burden elevation in the