AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In July 2014, the Defendant was living in a motel and engaged in a romantic relationship with Lisa Torres, who was suffering from cancer. Torres had given the Defendant several of her OxyContin tablets upon his request. Later, Torres, working as a confidential informant, informed the police that the Defendant could supply OxyContin. An undercover officer, pretending to be Torres's cousin, provided the Defendant with money to fill his prescription for OxyContin. The Defendant then gave a portion of these tablets to the undercover officer. Subsequently, the Defendant was arrested and charged with trafficking a controlled substance (OxyContin) (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the defense of entrapment, claiming he was not predisposed to commit the crime but was tricked into committing the offense by Torres and her police handler (para 10).
• Appellee: The summary does not explicitly detail the appellee's arguments, but it can be inferred that the appellee argued against the applicability of the entrapment defense based on the facts and legal standards (paras 6-20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment, specifically focusing on both subjective and objective entrapment (paras 5, 7, 14).

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, meaning the conviction of the Defendant for trafficking a controlled substance was upheld (para 21).

Reasons

• The court, comprising Judge Briana H. Zamora, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Megan P. Duffy concurring, provided several reasons for affirming the conviction. Firstly, it was determined that the Defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on subjective entrapment because he failed to demonstrate a lack of predisposition to commit the crime. The court found that the Defendant initiated the transaction that led to his arrest and did not present evidence of undue inducement by law enforcement or the informant (paras 8-13). Secondly, regarding objective entrapment, the court found no fundamental error in the district court's failure to instruct the jury on this defense. The court concluded that the Defendant did not establish that police conduct exceeded the bounds of proper investigation or used unconscionable methods against him. The court reasoned that any obligation the Defendant felt to repay Torres was of his own making, and not a result of police manipulation (paras 14-20).