## Facts

- Gordon Pascu was indicted under Alaska Statute 17.10.010 for selling one-half ounce of heroin on November 25, 1975, to Phillip Geiger and James Blair, who acted as police agents.
- Blair was a long-time friend of Pascu and, acting at police direction, contacted Pascu seeking heroin.
- Pascu initially refused, stating he was trying to stop using heroin and avoid involvement with the drug.
- Blair persisted, asserting he was suffering withdrawal, appealing to their friendship and past favors, and continuing to request heroin despite repeated refusals.
- Blair offered inducements tied to Pascu’s vulnerabilities, including promises of money sufficient for Pascu to obtain heroin for his own use and references to using heroin to relieve withdrawal.
- A pretrial entrapment hearing was held before a justice sitting by assignment as a superior court judge; after the defense presented evidence, the State requested a ruling, and the court found the defense showing insufficient.
- The case proceeded to trial before a different judge; Pascu was convicted, and final judgment was entered.

## Issues

1. Whether police-agent inducements—persistent solicitation, appeals to friendship and favors, and exploitation of withdrawal/addiction—constituted entrapment under Alaska’s objective standard.
2. Whether the court erred by rejecting entrapment at the close of the defense case at the pretrial hearing and by applying an overly stringent burden to the defendant’s entrapment showing.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
- The court held that the police conduct constituted entrapment under Alaska’s objective test.
- The court rejected the pretrial ruling that Pascu’s evidence was legally insufficient, concluding the record demonstrated impermissible inducement.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska applies an objective entrapment test focused on the nature and degree of police inducement, not the defendant’s predisposition.
- Entrapment occurs when law enforcement (or cooperating agents) induces an offense by persuasion or inducement likely to persuade an average person who is not otherwise ready and willing to commit the crime.
- Entrapment is decided by the court as a matter of law under the objective standard.
- The defendant bears the burden to prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence; once substantial inducement evidence is presented, the court should assess the full record of law-enforcement conduct.

## Conclusion

Because the police agent’s repeated, friendship-based pressure and exploitation of withdrawal and addiction exceeded permissible inducement under Alaska’s objective entrapment doctrine, the conviction for sale of a narcotic drug was reversed.


Pascu v. State, 577 P.2d 1064 (Alaska 1978)