It is well established that where there is no evidence that the defendant either was induced by the police to commit a crime in which he would not have engaged except for such inducement or that he admitted to committing a crime, a charge on entrapment is not required. State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431, 437-38, 378 A.2d 534 (1977); State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 584, 211 A.2d 165 (1965); State v. Grant, 8 Conn. App. 158, 164, 511 A.2d 369 (1986). There is, in the present case, insufficient evidence that the defendant either was induced by the police to commit a crime in which he would not have engaged except for such inducement or that he admitted to committing a crime.

On the other hand, if the evil intent and the criminal design originate in the mind of the government agent and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him for it, when he would not have committed an offense of that general character except for the urging of the agent, no conviction may be had." See also Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848; Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 454, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 583, 211 A.2d 165; DeFeo, "Entrapment as a Defense to Criminal Responsibility: Its History, Theory and Application," 1 U. San Fran. L. Rev. 243; note, 33 A.L.R.2d 883. As disclosed by the evidence printed in the appendix to the state's brief, the testimony of the defendant was in several respects at variance with that of the police officer. If the jury credited the defendant's version of the incident, they could have found that the defendant sold the narcotics because he felt friendly toward the officer and wanted to know him well since "he seemed like a pretty nice guy" and the officer asked him to obtain them.

The defendant did not meet the requirements of § 53a–15 in that there was no showing that he would not otherwise have engaged in this conduct. In view of our conclusion that the statutory requirements were not met for the trial court to have instructed the jury on entrapment, it is unnecessary for us to consider the apparent tension that exists in the law of entrapment between State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 584, 211 A.2d 165 (1965) (entrapment instruction only to be given if accused “admitted the commission of a crime”), and State v. Person, 236 Conn. 342, 350, 673 A.2d 463 (1996) (accused could deny committing murder at trial, but still raise inconsistent affirmative defense that, if he did commit crime, he did so under influence of extreme emotional disturbance); see also Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (under federal entrapment defense, accused could deny commission of one or more elements of charged offense and still be entitled, inconsistently, to instruction that if he committed crime, he was entrapped, provided that charge was supported by sufficient evidence). We leave this issue for another day.

See footnote 4. This statute codifies prior Connecticut caselaw, particularly State v. Marquardt, 139 Conn. 1, 89 A.2d 219 (1952), and State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 211 A.2d 165 (1965). Commission to Revise the Criminal Statutes, Penal Code Comments (1971), comment to 53a-15.

Similarly, we distinguish those cases where the failure of the defendant to concede his commission of the prohibited act which he claimed to have been induced by police mid conduct was partly relied upon in determining that the evidence was insufficient to support a defense of entrapment. See State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431, 436, 378 A.2d 534 (1977); State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 584, 211 A.2d 165 (1965). Quite apart from whether the defendant might have been entitled to a "theory of defense" charge, the court was under a duty to instruct the jury upon any appropriate lesser offense included in the charge of robbery in the first degree.

" State v. Rosado, supra, 707. Requests to charge have been denied where such admissions have been lacking. See State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431, 436, 378 A.2d 534 (1977) (entrapment); State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 584, 211 A.2d 165 (1965) (entrapment). We have held, with respect to affirmative defenses, "that only when evidence indicating the availability of one of the . . . legally recognized defenses is placed before a jury is a defendant entitled as a matter of law to a theory of defense instruction."

The evidence discloses nothing more than a simple request on the part of the officer that the defendant break the law and that alone is not "inducement" which would support a defense of entrapment. State v. Whitney, 157 Conn. 133, 136, 249 A.2d 238; State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 584, 211 A.2d 165; State v. Marquardt, supra, 6. Under the circumstances, the court properly instructed the jury that in the absence of any substantial evidence of an illegal inducement or an admission by the defendant that he had committed the offenses charged in the information, the defense of entrapment was not available to him, and that the jury should not consider the defense of entrapment and the claim of the defendant advanced in his argument that the defendant was induced to commit a crime which he otherwise would not have committed. "[General Statutes] Sec. 53a-15.

On the other hand, if the evil intent and the criminal design originate in the mind of the government agent and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him for it, when he would not have committed an offense of that general character except for the urging of the agent, no conviction may be had.'" To this quotation and the authorities cited, we further cited Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848; Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 454, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 583, 211 A.2d 165; DeFeo, "Entrapment as a Defense to Criminal Responsibility: Its History, Theory and Application," 1 U. San Fran. L. Rev. 243; noted 33 A.L.R.2d 883. The principles enunciated in the Fine case are in accord with those affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113, and United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 432, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366.

Although we are unable to find an Alabama case directly on point, the decided weight of authority is to the effect that the defense of entrapment is not available, and requested charges on the law of entrapment are properly refused, where the defendant takes the witness stand and denies the commission of the offense charged. Longmire v. United States, 404 F.2d 326 (C.A.5 1968), certiorari denied, 395 U.S. 912, 89 S.Ct. 1757, 23 L.Ed.2d 225; People v. Bernal, 174 Cal.App.2d 777, 345 P.2d 140; State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 211 A.2d 165; Neumann v. State, 116 Fla. 98, 156 So. 237; People v. Banks, 103 Ill. App.2d 180, 243 N.E.2d 669; Reeves v. State, 244 So.2d 5 (Miss.); State v. Varnon, 174 S.W.2d 146 (Mo.).

Such a denial is inconsistent with the defense, which assumes the offense charged was committed but permits accused to seek relief from guilt on the ground the criminal intent or design was not his, but rather that of employees or agents of the government who planted the idea in his otherwise innocent mind by suggestion or solicitation. The foregoing pronouncement is supported in whole or in part by the following decisions: United States v. Pagano, 207 F.2d 884, 885 (2 Cir. 1953); Munroe v. United States, 424 F.2d 243, 244 (10 Cir. 1970); Burris v. United States, 430 F.2d 399, 403 (7 Cir. 1970); United States v. Rodrigues, 433 F.2d 760, 761 (1 Cir. 1970); United States v. Groessel, 440 F.2d 602, 605 (5 Cir. 1971); United States v. Barrios, 457 F.2d 680, 682 (9 Cir. 1972); Brown v. State, 248 Ark. 561, 453 S.W.2d 50, 52; State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 211 A.2d 165, 166; Pearson v. State, 221 So.2d 760, 763-764 (Fla.App. 1969); People v. Shaw, 89 Ill. App.2d 285, 233 N.E.2d 73, 78; People v. Claugherty, 36 Mich. App. 648, 194 N.W.2d 54, 56; Reeves v. State, 244 So.2d 5, 6 (Miss. 1971); State v. Stock, 463 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Mo. 1971); State v. Parr, 129 Mont. 175, 283 P.2d 1086, 1089; State v. Johnson, 90 N.J. Super. 105, 216 A.2d 397, 403; State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 498 P.2d 695, 697; State v. Good, 110 Ohio App. 415, 165 N.E.2d 28, 39; Godin v. State, 441 S.W.2d 196, 197 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969). Contra, United States v. Neuman, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 131, 436 F.2d 285 (1970); People v. Perez, 62 Cal.2d 769, 44 Cal.Rptr. 326, 401 P.2d 934. At this point in time, so far as our research has disclosed, Perez has not been generally followed in other jurisdictions.