People v. Valverde

In People v. Valverde (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 318, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that the defendant has the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. (Valverde, supra, 246 Cal.App.2d 318.) To support its holding, the court found that entrapment does not go to the question of guilt or innocence. (Id. at p. 322.) The court looked at two aspects of the entrapment defense in making its finding. (Id. at pp. 322-324.) First, the court noted the policy reasons for why the courts have adopted the entrapment defense. The court averred that "'in California recognition of the defense is said to rest upon the broadly stated grounds of "sound public policy" and "good morals."'" (Id. at pp. 322-323.) The court went on to state that the policy is not to decriminalize certain crimes but is to "'. . . refuse to enable officers of the law to consummate illegal or unjust schemes designed to foster rather than prevent and detect crime.'" (Ibid.) Second, the court noted the nature of the entrapment defense itself. The court found that "' . . . the tests and definitions of entrapment stated by the California courts, like those stated by the United States Supreme Court, place at least as much emphasis on the susceptibility of the defendant as on the propriety of the methods of the police.'" (Ibid.)