Opinion ID: 199221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instructional Claim

Text: 43 Baltas also assigns error to the district court's denial of his request for an instruction on entrapment. Because Baltas did not register a post-charge objection to the omission of an entrapment charge, as mandated by Fed. R. Crim. P. 30, 4 we review the district court's decision for plain error. See United States v. Arthurs, 73 F.3d 444, 448 (1st Cir. 1996). 44 To be entitled to a defense on entrapment, a defendant must produce some evidence of both improper government inducement and lack of criminal predisposition. See United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1998). The defense is not available unless both elements exist. See United States v. Vega, 102 F.3d 1301, 1304 (1st Cir. 1996). 45 Baltas challenges that Alvis improperly induced him to join the conspiracy by exploiting his Diablo pride and joy, and by playing up the financial troubles of the club, and the need for revenue. This is a far stretch. Improper inducement goes beyond providing an ordinary opportunity to commit a crime. United States v. Gendron, 18 F.3d 955, 961 (1st Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). An inducement consists of an 'opportunity' plus something else--typically, excessive pressure by the government upon the defendant or the government's taking advantage of an alternative, non-criminal type of motive. Id. 46 In this case, the evidence at trial established that Baltas joined the conspiracy on his own accord. Alvis merely presented the Massachusetts Diablos with a plan to alleviate their strangling financial situation. Alvis may have been well regarded by his fellow Diablos and loyalty to the Club may have been strong among its members. Yet, the existence of these circumstances, without a plea predicated upon them, is legally not enough to constitute improper inducement. See United States v. Young, 78 F.3d 758, 761 (1st Cir. 1996) (rejecting the proposition that friendship, without a plea predicated upon friendship, suffices legally as inducement). Contrary to his claim, the record shows that it was Baltas -- who quickly seized on Alvis's idea -- and who played upon the Diablos's commitment to the Club to promote participation in the plan, by stating: Well, you know what? This is an outlaw motorcycle club. It's not a 50/50 club, it's not a 70/70 club. . . . [Y]ou got to take your shot. Absent improper inducement, the district court was not obliged to instruct the jury on entrapment, and thus our inquiry should end here. Nevertheless, we note that Baltas also failed to show at trial that he lacked the requisite predisposition. Therefore, because we conclude that Baltas was not entitled to have the jury consider his defense of entrapment, we affirm the district court's decision.