Court Opinion

ID: 9703252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:47:33.15823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:46.912005
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly states the rule that generally it is the fact finder which determines if entrapment has occurred, and that this issue may be decided as a matter of law only if the evidence points to one conclusion. It then goes on to state that the evidence, which is subject to different reasonable interpretations, leads to only one conclusion, namely that the appellant was entrapped.
In my opinion, the evidence raises a substantial factual issue as to whether the appellant was entrapped and the factual question clearly fell within the province of the jury. It seems to me that the majority has usurped the jury’s *296function by the simple expedient of determining as a matter of law what is clearly a question of fact.