United States v. Blanca Pena-Ozuna

Pena-Ozuna appeals from her conviction of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1). Her trial defense was entrapment. On appeal she questions only whether the jury instruction on that issue was erroneous. We affirm.

The instruction was taken, with minor modifications, from a book of suggested jury instructions and read as follows:

(Asterisk and emphasis added.) PenaOzuna claims that the trial court should have deleted the italicized language or, alternatively, added the following after the asterisk:

Pena-Ozuna does not contend that the instruction misstates the law of entrapment. She admits that the standard instruction upon which it was patterned “might .be considered ‘appellate-approved’ in light of United States v. Griffin, 434 F.2d 978 (9th Cir. 1970).” Accord, United States v. Watson, 489 F.2d 504, 506, 510-11 (3d Cir. 1973); United States v. Pollard, 483 F.2d 929, 932 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1137 , 94 S.Ct. 882 , 38 L.Ed.2d 762 (1974). She argues instead that the suggested modifications would not only be an improvement, but that without these modifications the instruction cannot fairly be…