Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

SERIES 3400 DEFENSES AND INSANITY

F 3408 Entrapment

TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 3408 Inst 1 Entrapment: Preponderance Is Lesser Standard
F 3408 Inst 2 Entrapment: Examples Are Not Exclusive
F 3408 Inst 3 Entrapment: Deletion Of Duplicative, Irrelevant And Argumentative Language
F 3408 Inst 4 (a & b) Argumentative Language Should Be Balanced To Assure Jurors Consider All Relevant Evidence
F 3408 Inst 5 Entrapment: Considerations Are Not Exclusive
F 3408 Inst 6 Entrapment: Jury Not Required To Decide
F 3408 Inst 7 Jurors Must Unanimously Reject Any Defenses Before Convicting

Return to Series 3400 Table of Contents.


F 3408 Inst 1 Entrapment: Preponderance Is Lesser Standard

*Modify CC 3408, paragraph 1, sentence 2, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:

This is a different lesser standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Points and Authorities

See FORECITE F 418.4 Inst 5.


F 3408 Inst 2 Entrapment: Examples Are Not Exclusive

*Modify CC 3408, paragraph 3, as follows [added language is underlined]:

Some examples of entrapment might include, but are not limited to, conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.

Points and Authorities

This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]

The CALCRIM Deficiency—It is crucial that the jury understand that entrapment may be based on conduct other than the specific examples given in the instruction. (See generally FORECITE F 105.2 Inst 2.)

WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:

FORECITE CG 7.1 [Right To Jury Consideration Of The Evidence]
FORECITE
CG 7.2 [Jury’s Duty To Fully And Fairly Apply The Law]

In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.


F 3408 Inst 3 Entrapment: Deletion Of Duplicative, Irrelevant And Argumentative Language

*Delete CC 3408, paragraph 5:

If an officer [or (his/her) agent] simply gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the defendant’s confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that conduct is not entrapment.

Points and Authorities

This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]

The CALCRIM Deficiency—Assuming the jurors are correctly instructed on what must be found for entrapment, it is duplicative, irrelevant and argumentative to instruct on conduct that is not entrapment. (See FORECITE F 416.3 Inst 4.)

WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:

FORECITE CG 5.4.1 [Instructions That Suggest An Opinion As To An Essential Fact, An Element Or Guilt]
FORECITE
CG 5.4.2 [Argumentative Instructions Not Suggesting Opinion On Guilt]
FORECITE
CG 5.4.3 [Undue Emphasis Of Specific Evidence]

In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.


F 3408 Inst 4 (a & b) Argumentative Language Should Be Balanced To Assure Jurors Consider All Relevant Evidence

*Add after CC 3408, paragraph 5:

Alternative a [fact not disputed]:

However, the fact that the officer gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime and tried to gain the defendant’s confidence are circumstances to consider in evaluating whether the defendant was entrapped.

Alternative b [fact disputed]:

However, whether or not the officer gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime and tried to gain the defendant’s confidence are circumstances to consider in evaluating whether the defendant was entrapped.

Points and Authorities

See FORECITE F 416.3 Inst 7.


F 3408 Inst 5 Entrapment: Considerations Are Not Exclusive

*Modify CC 3408, paragraph 6, sentence 2, as follows [added language is underlined]:

However, in deciding whether the officer’s conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, also consider other relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, events that happened before the crime, the defendant’s responses to the officer’s urging, the seriousness of the crime, and how difficult it would have been for law enforcement officers to discover that the crime had been committed.

Points and Authorities

See FORECITE F 105.2 Inst 2.


F 3408 Inst 6 Entrapment: Jury Not Required To Decide

*Modify CC 3409 paragraph 7, sentence 1, as follows [added language is underlined]:

When deciding, if you can, whether the defendant was entrapped, consider what a normally law-abiding person would have done in this situation.

Points and Authorities

See FORECITE F 100.7 Inst 1.


F 3408 Inst 7 Jurors Must Unanimously Reject Any Defenses Before Convicting

See FORECITE F 3500.2 Inst 4.

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES