Jack Oberman is a pharmacist at a local drug store and has never engaged in any form of illegal activity

Question

Local police officers received reports that the drug store was filling illegal prescriptions for OxyContin, a strong painkiller often sold on the streets. An undercover officer approached Jack on five separate occasions, claiming that he had a daughter suffering from a terminal illness who was in severe pain and discomfort. The undercover officer claimed he could not afford medical treatment and asked Jack to illegally provide him with OxyContin for his daughter. Jack refused on the first four occasions, but he finally consented after hearing the horrific stories of the young girl's suffering. Jack handed the undercover officer 10 OxyContin pills and was subsequently arrested. Is he entitled to the defense of entrapment? Would he be successful under both the objective and subjective tests?

Answer 1

Provide explanation as to why or why it is not entrapment. An entrapment is an excuse defense that is applicable if the government is found to have manufactured or initiated a crime that would not have otherwise occurred. Entrapment is an affirmative defense, which means it can be raised at trial easily. Student answers regarding whether it is a subjective or objective inquiry will also vary. Student should argue whether the entrapment is based on the offender's predisposition or the government's conduct. When an entrapment decision is based on the offender's predisposition, this is known as a subjectiveinquiry. By contrast, a focus on the government conduct presumably responsible for someone's decision to commit a crime is known as an objective inquiry.