3409.When Conduct of Officer May Not Be Attributed to
If, while acting for a law enforcement purpose, an officer [or (his/her)
agent] pretends to be an accomplice of a defendant, then no act done by
the officer [or agent] may be attributed to the defendant or held against
the defendant, unless the defendant, using (his/her) independent will,
directed the officer [or agent] to do the act.
[As used in this instruction, an agent is a person who does something at
the request, suggestion, or direction of an officer. It is not necessary that
the agent know the officer’s true identity, or that the agent realize that
he or she is acting as an agent.]
New January 2006
Give this instruction on request if supported by the evidence. (People v. Goldberg
(1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 562 [314 P.2d 151]; People v. Lanzit (1925) 70 Cal.App.
498, 509 [233 P. 816].)
• Case Law. People v. Goldberg (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 562 [314 P.2d 151];
People v. Lanzit (1925) 70 Cal.App. 498, 509 [233 P. 816].
• Agent Deﬁned. People v. McIntire (1979) 23 Cal.3d 742, 748 [153 Cal.Rptr.
237, 591 P.2d 527].
3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 73,
Defenses and Justiﬁcations, § 73.08 (Matthew Bender).