Opinion ID: 1936390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial judge erred by refusing to give walls' proposed entrapment instruction?

Text: Prior to trial, Walls gave notice of his intent to present an entrapment defense. After hearing all the evidence, the trial judge refused to give the jury Walls' proposed entrapment instruction and ruled that there was no evidentiary basis to support the instruction. On appeal, Walls argues that he had made a prima facie case for a jury instruction on the entrapment defense. Mississippi's law on entrapment is well-settled: Entrapment has been defined as the act of inducing or leading a person to commit a crime not originally contemplated by him, for the purpose of trapping him for the offense. The defense of entrapment is affirmative and must be proved by the defendant. If the defendant already possesses the criminal intent, and the request or inducement merely gave the defendant the opportunity to commit what he or she was already predisposed to do, entrapment is not a defense.       Before a defendant can raise the defense of entrapment, he or she is required to show evidence of government inducement to commit the criminal act and a lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal act prior to contact with government agents. Hopson v. State, 625 So.2d 395, 399-400 (Miss. 1993) (citations omitted) [1] Predisposition and state inducement are essentially questions of fact. An entrapment defense will generally present matters to be submitted to the jury on proper instructions. Moore v. State, 534 So.2d 557, 559 (Miss. 1988). Once the defendant makes out a prima facie case that he was entrapped, three consequences follow: First, the burden of production and proof shifts to the prosecution. Second, predisposition becomes a fact of consequence and evidence thereof becomes relevant and, hence, always admissible. Third, the accused becomes entitled to have the defense of entrapment submitted to the jury on proper instructions. Tanner v. State, 566 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Miss. 1990) (citations omitted). The standard of review in these cases is as follows: [W]hether an issue should be submitted to the jury is determined by whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction. Conversely, only where the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable juror could find for the requesting party on the issue at hand may the trial court deny an instruction on a material issue.       [W]hether the entrapment defense should be submitted to the jury depends upon whether there is credible evidence in the record supporting such a defense.       Our question then is whether there was sufficient evidence in the record that a rational jury might have found for [the appellant] on the entrapment issue. Avery v. State, 548 So.2d 385, 387 (Miss. 1989) (quoting King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Miss. 1988)). This Court has held that an entrapment instruction is not necessary where a defendant was merely asked to sell the substance and he was caught. Ervin v. State, 431 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss. 1983). In the case at hand, as in Ervin, the appellant was asked to sell the substance and he was caught. No one coerced or otherwise forced him to ... deliver the substance to [the State agent]. Id. at 134. Therefore, this Court holds that the record failed to support a prima facie case of entrapment and that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the issue to the jury. See Id.