Opinion ID: 1922523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Entrapment Instruction. This court recently stated the essence of entrapment thus, in State v. Davis, 175 N.W.2d 407, 410 (Iowa):

Text: Basically entrapment is the inducement of an innocent person into the commission of a crime by trickery, persuasion or fraud of a government agent. Government action in merely providing the opportunity or facilities for the commission of crime does not constitute entrapment. See also State v. Heeron, 208 Iowa 1151, 226 N.W. 30. The Iowa State Bar Association prepared a uniform instruction based on the Heeron opinion. II Uniform Jury Instructions, Iowa State Bar Ass'n, No. 501.21. The uniform instruction accurately states the law. In the instant case the trial court in its Instruction 9 followed the uniform instruction, adapting the language to the evidence here. Defendant requested an instruction, however, which contained the same thought but used somewhat stronger language, that entrapment is a complete, legal and proper defense and that the State has the burden of proof. In addition to its Instruction 9, the trial court clearly stated in Instruction 7 that the State had the burden of disproving entrapment and that if it failed to sustain its burden, defendant must be acquitted. The instructions must, of course, be read together. State v. Upton, 167 N.W.2d 625 (Iowa). A trial court must walk a middle course and avoid arguing the case for either side in the instructions. State v. Gillespie, 163 N.W.2d 922 (Iowa). Trial courts are not required to instruct in the parties' own words. Malcor v. Johnson, 223 Iowa 644, 273 N.W. 145. Taking the trial court's instructions altogether, we are satisfied that the matter of entrapment was properly laid before the jury. III. Verdicts. The trial court submitted the usual two forms of verdict guilty or not guilty. Defendant objected that a third form of verdict should be submittednot guilty by reason of entrapment but he has been unable to find any authority to support his contention. The verdicts submitted by the trial court were in accord with the forms prescribed by § 785.1, Code, 1971. They were proper. Affirmed.