Entrapment is a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was entrapped.
A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer [or (his/her) agent] engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.
Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.
Another example of entrapment would be conduct that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. Such conduct might include a guarantee that the act is not illegal or that the offense would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit, or other similar conduct.
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.
In evaluating this defense, you should focus primarily on the conduct of the officer. 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 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.
When deciding whether the defendant was entrapped, consider what a normally law-abiding person would have done in this situation. Do not consider the defendant's particular intentions or character, or whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime.