Entrapment is when a defendant asserts that if they committed the crime they did so only because they were entrapped into committing it. Entrapment consists of implanting criminal ideas in innocent minds and thereby bringing about offenses that otherwise would never have been perpetrated.
The defendant contends that a government agent or someone acting at the agent's discretion induced them into committing the offense.
There is nothing improper about the police setting traps such as with undercover methods to catch those who are already disposed toward committing a crime.
However, the state cannot tolerate having its officers instigate crime by implanting criminal ideas in innocent minds. The issue is not whether the government agent brought about this particular offense, but rather, whether the government agent brought about the defendant's predisposition to crime. No entrapment exists if a person is ready and willing to commit a crime whenever the opportunity presents itself and a government agent merely provides the opportunity or facilities to do so.
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped. That is, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime.
If a jury is left with reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was willing to commit the crime without the persuasion of the government agent, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
Under federal law, even if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he or she is entitled to an entrapment defense whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment.