An undercover officer and a sale of stolen power tools
Argue that the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction because the officer induced the sale and the defendant was not predisposed. You have 90 minutes. To: Associate. Use the File and the Library only, then compare your draft with the rubric and the model answer below.
The assignment
To: Associate. From: Rebecca Sandoval, Public Defender. Re: State v. Arceneaux. Our client, Luis Arceneaux, is charged with selling stolen power tools to an undercover officer. Please draft the Argument section of a brief supporting his motion for an entrapment instruction. Show that there is evidence of inducement and that the State cannot show predisposition, and address the State's use of his prior record. Use only the Library.
File
Detective Marsh's report
Detective Ana Marsh, posing as a contractor, met Mr. Arceneaux at a hardware store lot where he was doing day work. Over five weeks she contacted him 11 times by phone and text. She told him her business was failing and that she needed cheap tools to keep her family afloat. Mr. Arceneaux said at first that he did not have any tools to sell. On her seventh call she offered $1,200 for a set of tools worth about $600. On the 11th contact he brought a set of stolen power tools to the lot and sold them for $1,200.
Mr. Arceneaux's statement
I told her no several times. She kept calling and saying she was going to lose her house. I felt sorry for her. I got the tools from a guy who owed me money. I did not know they were stolen until later.
Prior record
Mr. Arceneaux has a 2015 conviction for shoplifting, a misdemeanor. He has no prior conviction for selling stolen property.
Library
Franklin Penal Code, section 12-40
It is a defense to a crime that the defendant was induced to commit it by law enforcement, and was not otherwise predisposed to commit it. Once the defendant produces some evidence of inducement, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed.
State v. Pruett, 39 Fr.3d 480 (Fr. Ct. App. 2013)
Inducement is more than an offer of an opportunity to commit a crime. Repeated requests, appeals to sympathy or friendship, pressure, or an unusually attractive price can amount to inducement. The court looks at the whole course of contact. A defendant's initial refusal is evidence of reluctance.
State v. Delgado, 44 Fr.3d 129 (Fr. Sup. Ct. 2016)
Predisposition is measured as of the time the government first approached the defendant. Relevant factors are the defendant's prior similar conduct, whether the defendant showed eagerness or reluctance, and whether the defendant was motivated by profit. A prior conviction is relevant only if it is similar to the charged crime and reasonably recent. A defendant is entitled to an instruction if there is some evidence of inducement, even if the evidence is weak or contradicted.
What graders look for in this task
Graders score a response against these criteria, and every one of them depends on using only the facts in the File and only the rules in the Library, so treat the list as a check for your draft after the first pass and again before you stop writing.
States section 12-40 and the burden shift: some evidence of inducement, then the State must prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt
Uses Pruett: repeated contacts, sympathy appeal, and above-value price as inducement
Uses Delgado: an instruction is required on some evidence, even weak or contradicted
Argues reluctance: initial refusals and the seven calls before any offer
Addresses the prior shoplifting conviction as not similar and not predictive of selling stolen goods
Acknowledges the State's best fact, that he supplied the tools, and the profit motive