Opinion ID: 862517
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: I. WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY REFUSING TO ALLOW THE JURY TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION ON ENTRAPMENT WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. ¶9. In his first assignment of error, McCollum contends that the trial court improperly denied his jury instruction on entrapment. Law The defense of entrapment is available where criminal intent did not originate in the mind of the accused, or stated differently, where the accused was not predisposed to commit the crime. Where, however, the intent to commit the crime already existed in the mind of the accused so that the inducement merely served to give him an opportunity to commit that to which he was already disposed, the entrapment defense does not lie. King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988) (citations omitted).