Opinion ID: 2136461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Next to be considered is defendant's assignment, supra, regarding instruction 13 as submitted.

Text: By the controverted portion thereof the jury was told: If the intent to commit the crime did not originate with the defendant and he was not carrying out his own criminal purpose, but the crime was suggested by law enforcement officers for the purpose of entrapping and causing the arrest of the defendant, then defendant is not criminally liable for the act so committed and you should return a verdict of not guilty. Briefly stated, Lamar contends trial court erred in refusing to include in the above quoted portion of instruction 13, after the words suggested by law enforcement officers, the additional phrase or their agents. By reason of our conclusion, infra, there is no need to here consider established rules relative to preservation of error, if any, regarding jury instructions in criminal cases. See, however, State v. Youngbear, 203 N.W.2d 274, 277-278 (Iowa 1972); State v. Hackett, 197 N.W.2d 569, 572 (Iowa 1972). There are, however, some pertinent guiding principles to be considered. It is axiomatic a jury must be instructed on the law applicable to facts supported by the evidence and shall be so instructed if evidence is admitted which supports some involved issue. See State v. McConnell, 178 N.W.2d 386, 389-390 (Iowa 1970). But the above noted standard comes into play only where relevant evidence is produced which would make apparent the materiality of the law claimed applicable thereto. See State v. Armstrong, 203 N.W.2d 269, 274 (Iowa 1972); State v. Davis, 175 N.W.2d 407, 410-411 (Iowa 1970); 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1313. This means, a trial court is not required to instruct the jury on any issue which finds no evidentiary support in the record.