Abstract
This Note will explore the history of the entrapment defense. In addition, this Note will review previous federal court decisions regarding the inconsistency rule. The inconsistency rule refuses a criminal defendant the right to deny committing the charged acts and plead the entrapment defense. This Note will analyze both the majority and dissenting opinions of Mathews. The Note concludes by urging the North Carolina courts to follow the Mathews lead and change its stance with regard to the inconsistency rule.
Recommended Citation
George Robert Hicks III, Criminal Law - The "No I Didn't, and Yes I Did But...." Defense: Is the Entrapment Defense Available to Criminal Defendants Who Deny Doing the Crime? - Mathews v. United States, 11 Campbell L. Rev. 279 (1989).