State v. Keller, 374 N.C. 637

Undercover Lincolnton PD detective posted as a teenage boy on Craigslist; defendant responded to the ad and exchanged emails/texts with the undercover officer.
Detective (alias ‘Kelly’) ultimately identified himself as underage; defendant continued communications, agreed to meet, and drove to the meeting location where he was arrested.
Defendant was indicted for solicitation by computer of a person believed to be under 16 to commit an unlawful sex act and for appearing at the meeting location (N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3).
At trial defendant testified he thought the poster was an adult, that he often met adult men on Craigslist, that he planned to shelter the youth rather than have sex immediately, and that he only agreed to sex after pressure and fear the youth would meet someone else.
The trial court denied defendant’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment; the jury convicted. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed; the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the entrapment instruction should have been given and the error was prejudicial.

Issue	State's Argument	Keller's Argument	Held
Whether defendant presented sufficient evidence to warrant an entrapment instruction	Evidence showed defendant was willing and predisposed; undercover merely provided opportunity	Defendant produced credible evidence that law enforcement implanted criminal intent and he lacked predisposition	Yes. Viewing defendant's testimony as true and all evidence in his favor, a reasonable juror could find entrapment; instruction required
Whether asserting entrapment was inconsistent with defendant's other trial defenses	Entrapment inconsistent because defendant denied elements (knowledge of age)	Defendant denied only mens rea (intent to commit unlawful act) while admitting acts; Neville allows entrapment when defendant contests intent	No inconsistency. Keller denied criminal intent but not the acts; entrapment was a permissible, consistent theory
Whether failure to instruct on entrapment was prejudicial	Any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of predisposition	Jury questioned the court about intent; entitlement to entrapment could have changed outcome	Prejudicial. Juror questions showed intent was central; reasonable possibility of different result if instructed; new trial warranted

State v. Hageman, 307 N.C. 1 (1982) (defines entrapment and places initial burden on defendant to prove it)
State v. Walker, 295 N.C. 510 (1978) (insufficient-evidence standard for inferring inducement by government)
State v. Neville, 302 N.C. 623 (1981) (distinguishes denial of actus reus from denial of mens rea; entrapment may be raised when defendant denies intent)
State v. Luster, 306 N.C. 566 (1982) (predisposition inquiry; opportunity alone does not constitute entrapment)
State v. Burnette, 242 N.C. 164 (1955) (defendant entitled to instruction if some credible evidence supports entrapment)
State v. Hipp, 245 N.C. 205 (1956) (entrapment is generally a jury question)
State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158 (1974) (contradictory evidence does not bar an instruction if defendant presents evidence supporting claim)
State v. Wallace, 246 N.C. 445 (1957) (entrapment constitutes a defense)