The opinion
WOODLEY, Judge
(concurring).
Whether entrapment is properly called a defense to crime in this state or not, if, as he testified, appellant had not previous *628 ly been engaged in similar activity and had no purpose or intent of doing so, and the state is seeking to prosecute, convict and punish him for an offense which was envisaged, planned and its commission by appellant activated by the officer for the sole purpose of obtaining his conviction for a crime which is the product of the creative activity of the officer, common justice required that the appellant be permitted to prove such facts.
If shown or found to exist, the consumation of so revolting a plan ought not to be permitted by any self-respecting tribunal. Sorrells v. U. S., 287 U. S. 435 , 77 L. Ed. 413 .
The officer in question admitted no such scheme to secure the conviction of innocent persons by inducing them to violate the law in order that he might prosecute them therefor. If he had, the writer entertains no doubt that appellant would have received prompt protection at the hands of the prosecuting attorney and from the trial court.
The issue, however, was raised by appellant’s testimony and was an appropriate one for the jury, and the requested charge appears to be sufficient to call the matter to the attention of the court.