The Defendant here was convicted based on evidence that he was involved in a delivery to what turned out to be a paid informant of the Bloomington Police Department. The Defendant first argued on appeal that he was entitled to an entrapment instruction.
The appellate court disagreed, stating that the “slight evidence” test regarding whether an entrapment instruction is warranted applies only after a defendant has admitted that a crime was committed and he committed it. Because the defendant denied committing the crime, he wasn’t entitled to the instruction.
They also rejected the idea that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for a special jury instruction on paid informants after going through federal decisions in other Circuits as well as unpublished Illinois decisions.
The Court finally found the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument to be proper in light of the context of the entire trial.
The case is People v. John Edward Trice.