Return to CALJIC Part 3-4 – Contents
F 4.61.5 n1 Entrapment: Permissible And Impermissible Conduct.
“Police inducements which play on ‘base’ emotions are no less reprehensible than those which appeal to more altruistic feelings. In both cases the question is whether the police conduct would induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. [Footnote omitted].” (People v. Hillary DEPUBLISHED (94) 23 CA4th 288, 294 [28 CR2d 415].) Hence, an offer by the police agent to trade sexual favors for narcotics falls far short of an acceptable standard of police conduct and may constitute entrapment.
“[I]t is impermissible for the police or their agents to pressure the suspect by overbearing conduct such as badgering, cajoling, importuning, or other affirmative acts likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.” (People v. Barraza (1979) 23 C3d 675 [153 CR 459].) It is also impermissible for the police or their agents to conduct themselves in a manner that would induce a normally law-abiding person “to commit the act because of friendship or sympathy, instead of a desire for personal gain or other typical criminal purpose.” (Id.; see also Bradley v. Duncan (9th Cir. 2002) 315 F3d 1091 [officers chose as their “hook” an ill drug addict decoy “whose physical suffering would appeal to the sympathies of most people”].)
