Opinion ID: 2073219
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Objections to jury instructions.

Text: Defendant objected to the words normal law-abiding (person) in the entrapment instruction given by the court. His requested instruction eliminated those words. Of course the phrase approved in State v. Mullen, 216 N.W.2d 375, 382 (Iowa 1974), is normally law-abiding person, but defendant does not assign this distinction as error. A similar attack was made in State v. Leonard, 243 N.W.2d 75, 81 (Iowa 1976), but we refused to consider it because it was unsupported by any authority. In State v. Reynolds, supra, 250 N.W.2d at 438, we have adversely disposed of defendant's contention. Defendant contends the instruction should have contained additional language to specifically eliminate defendant's predisposition as a factor to be considered by the jury. The instruction incorporated the objective test of Mullen. Failure to include the requested language was not error. See State v. Pelelo, 247 N.W.2d 221, 225 (Iowa 1976). Finally, defendant argues trial court erred in limiting the entrapment instruction to the delivery charge and not including the possession charge. We reject this contention because, in our view, defendant did not carry his burden of generating a fact question on the defense of entrapment. State v. Cooper, 248 N.W.2d 908, 910 (Iowa 1976); State v. Tomlinson, supra, 243 N.W.2d at 553. When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, Cooper, supra, the evidence and all permissible inferences at most disclosed undercover policemen making a buy from defendant upon the assurance they were friendly to his roommate and ordinarily bought their drugs from him. This misses by a wide mark evidence of an appeal based on close personal friendship which we indicated in Mullen, supra, 216 N.W.2d at 383, would generate a jury issue. Instigations which would induce only a person engaged in an habitual course of unlawful conduct for gain or profit do not constitute entrapment. State v. Leonard, supra, 243 N.W.2d at 80. Because on this record trial court was not required to submit any entrapment instruction, failure of the instruction given to include the possession charge could not constitute error. We have examined all other arguments advanced by defendant in the various divisions of his brief and find them to be without merit. Defendant was accorded a fair trial and judgment of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.