In any prosecution for an offense, it shall be a defense that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a public servant, or by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant, for the purpose of institution of criminal prosecution against the defendant, and that the defendant did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in such conduct.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 15.)
Cited. 173 C. 197; Id., 431. Defendant is entitled to a theory of defense instruction as a matter of law when evidence under section is before jury. 178 C. 704. Cited. 195 C. 70; 201 C. 211; 204 C. 240; 209 C. 75; 229 C. 60. Trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury on defense of entrapment because there was no evidence presented that defendant was initially unwilling to commit a crime or that the actions of the officers actually implanted a criminal design in defendant's mind. 305 C. 330.
Cited. 8 CA 158; 20 CA 395; 21 CA 326; 23 CA 392; 30 CA 470; 42 CA 751; 46 CA 486.