Opinion ID: 2049354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Next considered is the issue presented as to instructions given and requested on entrapment.

Text: It is essential we inceptionally note some relevant guidelines regarding preservation of error in criminal proceedings as to jury instructions. Admittedly, it is trial court's duty to instruct a jury fully and fairly, even without request, but ordinarily an accused must preserve error, if any, by (1) specifically objecting to instructions in their final form; (2) requesting instructions, and voicing specific exception in event they are refused. Also, with certain exceptions, a defendant may defer objections until the filing of a post-verdict new trial motion. See generally State v. Jensen, 216 N.W.2d 369, 375 (Iowa 1974); State v. Shockey, 214 N.W.2d 146, 151 (Iowa 1974); State v. Buchanan, 207 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Iowa 1973); State v. Hraha, 193 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Iowa 1972); State v. Brandt, 182 N. W.2d 916, 918 (Iowa 1971); State v. Gilmore, 181 N.W.2d 145, 147 (Iowa 1970); State v. Brown, 172 N.W.2d 152, 157-160 (Iowa 1969); State v. Franklin, 163 N.W. 2d 437, 441 (Iowa 1968). See also 22 Drake L.Rev. 435, 469-473 (1973). At the threshold it is apparent instruction 8 as submitted does not comport with the objective standard enunciated in State v. Mullen, 216 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa 1974). See also State v. Deanda, 218 N. W.2d 649, 650-651 (Iowa 1974). A search of the record reveals, however, defendant never raised this point in trial court so it is not a factor to be considered on appeal. On that subject we dispositively declared in State v. Mullen, 216 N.W.2d at 382, the concept there adopted as to entrapment shall:    apply to the case sub judice, to all cases still appealable or on appeal in which the issue has been properly raised below, and of course to all cases subsequently tried in which a proper record is made in trial court. See also State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 (Iowa 1974); Everett v. Brewer, 215 N.W.2d 244, 247-248 (Iowa 1974); State v. Nepple, 211 N.W.2d 330, 332-333 (Iowa 1973). Actually, as presented for review, defendant contends trial court erred in failing to tell the jury, by instruction 8, entrapment was established as a matter of law upon the showing that drugs sold to defendant by a government agent were repurchased by the sovereign. But, the aforesaid contention is here voiced for the first time. Therefore it will not now be entertained. See State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d at 356, and citations. Furthermore, for reasons above stated the instant claim is without merit.