## Facts

- Russell Davies was convicted in Arizona state court of luring a minor for sexual exploitation based on internet chatroom conversations with a police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.
- After the chat turned sexual, Davies went to an apartment complex to meet the “girl” and was arrested.
- The chatroom discussion began without sexually explicit content and included questions from Davies about whether the girl was too young to have a boyfriend, what she did on dates, and whether she wanted to hang out and kiss.
- After the girl asked Davies for more details about what he wanted to do, Davies stated he wanted to touch her between her legs.
- At trial, the State admitted there was no evidence that Davies was predisposed to this type of crime, but argued the idea to commit the offense did not originate with the officer.
- Davies requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of entrapment; the trial court refused to give the instruction.
- Davies appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing he was entitled to an entrapment instruction because there was some evidence reasonably supporting the defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment when Davies claimed there was some evidence that police conduct originated the criminal idea or induced the offense in the chatroom exchange.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that the evidence did not reasonably support giving an entrapment instruction because the record did not show that law enforcement originated the idea of the crime or induced Davies to commit it, as opposed to providing an opportunity through an undercover online persona.
- Because the entrapment instruction was not warranted on the evidence presented, the trial court’s refusal to instruct was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Entrapment is an affirmative defense that focuses on whether law enforcement originated the criminal design and induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit the offense.
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a defense theory only when there is evidence in the record that reasonably supports the instruction.
- Police may use undercover tactics and provide an opportunity to commit a crime; without proof of origination of the criminal idea and inducement, the entrapment defense is not triggered.
- In evaluating whether an instruction must be given, the court looks to whether the evidence—viewed in the manner most favorable to the proponent of the instruction—could permit a reasonable jury to find the elements of the defense.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Davies*, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld a luring-a-minor-for-sexual-exploitation conviction arising from an internet sting, ruling that the trial court correctly refused an entrapment instruction because the evidence did not reasonably show that the undercover officer originated the criminal idea or induced Davies to commit the offense rather than merely offering an opportunity.


State v. Davies, 2008 WL 4965306 (2008)