Opinion ID: 2595425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Frustration of the Defense of Entrapment

Text: Jennings claims that the district court unlawfully frustrated his entrapment defense. Jennings does not tell us how this occurred, nor does he present any argument or authority supporting this assertion. We note from the record that Jennings was allowed to argue his entrapment theory in both opening and closing arguments, and the thrust of much of his questioning of witnesses went to his purported defense. The district court refused an instruction on that theory of defense because there was simply no evidence to support it other than Jennings' bald assertions. The gist of Jennings' entrapment defense was that he had been entrapped into escaping because that was the only way he could clear his name from the unjust conviction that caused his incarceration. That theory and the facts Jennings used to support it did not entitle him to the requested theory of defense instruction. Swartz v. State, 971 P.2d 137, 139-40 (Wyo. 1998). The district court committed no error in this regard, and we decline to further consider this issue.