Opinion ID: 1367509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Objective Theory of Entrapment

Text: In his first issue, appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury on an objective, as well as subjective, theory of entrapment. He assigns as error the omission of the following requested statement from the jury instruction on entrapment: [E]ntrapment occurs only when the criminal conduct was the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement officials. It does not arise if one is ready to commit the offense given but the opportunity. The subjective theory of entrapment focuses on a particular defendant's intent or predisposition to commit the crime charged, while the objective theory focuses on the effect of the State's tactics on the hypothetical reasonable law-abiding citizen. See LaFleur v. State, 533 P.2d 309, 314 (Wyo.1975); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413, 86 A.L.R. 249 (1932) (subjective theory); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 439, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1646, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973) (objective approach advocated by Stewart, J., dissenting). See also Laura Gardner Webster, Building a Better Mousetrap: Reconstructing Federal Entrapment Theory from Sorrells to Matthews, 32 Ariz.L.Rev. 605, 607 (1990). The language appellant requested can be found in our entrapment cases. See e.g., Noetzelmann v. State, 721 P.2d 579, 581 (Wyo.1986). However, it is not objective theory language, as appellant claims. Although the first of the two statements appellant requested mentions the creative activity of law enforcement officials, it does not adopt the objective theory. Even in subjective theory, there is a threshold question whether the police merely offered the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or whether they somehow induced the defendant to act illegally. Once it has been determined that inducement is involved, the defendant's predisposition comes into question. This first sentence merely restates the threshold question of the subjective inquiry. Its origin is Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958), a case which took the subjective view of entrapment. See Dycus v. State, 529 P.2d 979, 981 (Wyo.1974). The second sentence which appellant requested actually concerns predisposition, and so it is difficult to understand how it could support the objective theory. In fact, both sentences are standard, subjective entrapment language. Even had they been included, they would not have presented the objective theory of entrapment to the jury. In any case, appellant was not entitled to present that theory, because we do not recognize the objective theory of entrapment in Wyoming. [2] A review of our past cases on this subject shows that Wyoming follows the subjective approach to entrapment. See Noetzelmann, 721 P.2d at 581; Wright v. State, 670 P.2d 1090, 1102 (Wyo.1983) (Rose, J., dissenting), reh'g denied, cert. granted, opinion modified and remanded, 707 P.2d 153 (Wyo.1985); Janski v. State, 538 P.2d 271, 274-76 (Wyo.1975); Dycus, 529 P.2d at 980-81; Montez v. State, 527 P.2d 1330, 1331-32 (Wyo.1974); Jackson v. State, 522 P.2d 1286, 1288-89 (Wyo.1974); Higby v. State, 485 P.2d 380, 384 (Wyo.1971). See also W. Michael Kleppinger, Note, Criminal ProcedureThe Entrapment DefenseThe Determination of Predisposition. Janski v. State, 538 P.2d 271 (Wyo.1975), XI Land and Water L.Rev. 265, 270 (1976). But see LaFleur, 533 P.2d at 314 (taking no position on the subjective/objective issue). As a part of his argument, appellant urges us to either abandon the subjective theory or supplement it with the objective. We note that the subjective theory has been adopted by the majority of the states. Kleppinger, supra, at 270. That fact alone, of course, is no reason to retain it, and certainly does not argue against supplementing it with the objective standard. However, there are other, more practical reasons for remaining with the subjective test. This court, in the absence of constitutional violations, should not attempt to exercise a chancellor's foot veto over law enforcement practices. See Russell, 411 U.S. at 435, 93 S.Ct. at 1644. Presently existing entrapment law serves the purpose of ensuring that a defendant is not punished who, but for government encouragement, would not have committed an offense. The subjective test is an adequate vehicle to achieve that end. We have reviewed the instruction the trial court did give, and while it did not use the language found in our cases, it did present an acceptable version of the subjective entrapment defense. The requested language would not have added anything to the instruction the court gave; it would merely have been cumulative. Therefore, it was properly rejected. See Prime v. State, 767 P.2d 149, 154 (Wyo.1989). Since this case was argued, we have recognized a defense of outrageous government conduct. See Mondello v. State, 843 P.2d 1152 (Wyo.1992). Although it bears some similarity to the objective theory of entrapment, this defense should not be confused with either of the traditional approaches to the entrapment defense. It examines neither the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime nor the likely effect of police conduct on a hypothetical reasonable man. Instead, the defense focuses purely upon the conduct of the police. The outrageous government conduct defense is available only in circumstances where the police conduct is violat[ive of] that `fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice,' mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment [to the United States Constitution]. Mondello, at 1158, quoting United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. at 432, 93 S.Ct. at 1643. A jury instruction on this theory would not have been appropriate, because whether the government's conduct was outrageous is a question the trial court must decide. It is the court's conscience which is shocked. The trial court considered, and rejected, a due process defense in this case. Whether it did so properly is the subject of appellant's next issue.