Opinion ID: 724637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jury instruction on predisposition

Text: 24 Whether a jury instruction properly states the law of entrapment is a pure question of law subject to de novo review. United States v. Sterner, 23 F.3d 250, 252 (9th Cir.1994). However, the district court's actual formulation of the instruction (so long as it properly states the law) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vaandering, 50 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir.1995). Because the issue here is whether the instruction properly stated the law of entrapment, the defendant's theory of defense, the proper standard of review is de novo. United States v. Duran, 59 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 535 (1995). 25 Appellant contends that the district court should have given an instruction stating that predisposition must exist immediately before the government's contact with defendant Payton preceding the criminal activity. Appellant's Brief at 32 n. 7. In support of this instruction, Appellant cites the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992). 26 However, Jacobson does not require that the predisposition must exist immediately before government agents contacted the defendant. Rather, under Jacobson, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 549. 9 There is no requirement that a jury instruction state that the predisposition must exist immediately before the government conduct. See United States v. Larizza, 72 F.3d 775 (9th Cir.1995) (approving an instruction that did not state that the predisposition must exist immediately before the government contact); United States v. Lessard, 17 F.3d 303, 305 (9th Cir.1994) (not discussing an immediacy requirement and holding that an entrapment instruction must 'tell the jury that the government was required to show that [the defendant] was predisposed to commit the illegal acts prior to the initial contact by government agents.). All that is required of an entrapment jury instruction is that it make clear that the predisposition must have occurred prior to the government contact. 27 Thus, in United States v. Lorenzo, 43 F.3d 1303, 1307 (9th Cir.1995), the Ninth Circuit specifically approved an instruction that stated that the jury should consider all of the evidence received in this case concerning the intentions and disposition of the Defendant before encountering the law enforcement officers or their agents [.] Lorenzo, 43 F.3d at 1307 (emphasis in original). The court expressly held that this instruction sufficiently describes the appropriate time frame for determining a defendant's predisposition. Id. Accordingly, the district court did not err in instructing the jury on predisposition. 28 AFFIRMED.