Chester M. was convicted in 1986 of violating the Child Protection Act of 1984 by purchasing and receiving through the postal system magazines and photographs of pre-teenage boys engaged in sexual acts. Four years later, in 1990, the government had reason to believe that Chester was continuing to purchase illegal child pornography through the mails. In March of 1990, the government sent a letter to Chester from a fictitious organization devoted to ending censorship of all types of pornography. Chester joined the organization and filled out a questionnaire regarding what types of sexual materials he found enjoyable. In December of 1990, the government sent Chester another letter from a different fake organization, inviting responses from people who recognize the joys of sex and beauty and appeal of young boys and girls. Chester responded that he was interested in receiving more information.

In February of 1991, the government employed its final plan. The government devised a false pen pal who wrote Chester and questioned him about his interest in pornographic depictions of young boys. The pen pal explained that he could obtain magazines containing sexual materials involving depictions of young boys. Further, the pen pal wrote, "Chester, you have never seen such pictures. I can get you stuff that will blow your mind!" Intrigued, Chester wrote the pen-pal and asked where he could purchase the magazines.

 The government then sent, through the pen pal, an order form from another fictitious entity that supposedly dealt in child pornography. Chester placed his order, and was arrested for violating the Child Protection Act, after a controlled delivery of the pornographic materials was made.

 Chester presented an entrapment defense at trial. Does he have a valid defense under the objective entrapment defense? Subjective entrapment theory?

Barrett Temple

Wake Forest University

Answer

Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or someone cooperating with him has induced the defendant to commit a crime that the defendant is not predisposed to commit.  There is no constitutional basis for the defense of entrapment, it varies in every state.  Therefore, if your exam is focusing on federal constitutional law, you probably will not need to worry about entrapment.