Tavitas, J.
Joshua Clark appeals his conviction for child solicitation, a Level 4 felony. Clark argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.
Clark raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Clark’s request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment.
…
Predator Catchers, Inc. (“PCI”) is a 501(c)(3) organization founded by Eric Schmutte. PCI’s mission is to “expos[e] men and women that are looking to engage in sexual activity with minors.”
…
Clark argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. Specifically, Clark argues that Schmutte and PCI were “apparent agent[s]” of law enforcement…We disagree.
…
Clark directs us to no caselaw holding that our entrapment statute encompasses apparent agents of law enforcement. We need not decide that issue, however, because we find that there are no facts in the record that would support an apparent agency relationship between Schmutte or PCI and law enforcement.
PCI is a private, civilian organization separate and apart from law enforcement. PCI receives no training, advice, or assistance from law enforcement, and receives all of its funding from private donations. PCI also does not notify law enforcement until after they “catch” someone, and here, Detective Boggess discovered PCI’s allegations against Clark by viewing the livestreamed encounter on his own personal Facebook feed and only contacted Schmutte after PCI livestreamed the encounter. Further, Detective Boggess treated the livestream merely as “a tip” from which he launched his own, independent investigation into Clark. Tr. Vol. II p. 246-47. Clark also concedes that there was no “cooperation” between Schmutte or PCI and law enforcement.
Clark argues that “[b]y not doing anything to stop Schmutte and actively accepting his ‘help,’ the State of Indiana has placed him in a position to perform acts that appear to any reasonable person to endow him with the power of the [S]tate.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. Similarly, in Clark’s Reply Brief, Clark makes the reference that “Batman is not the apparent agent of Commissioner Gordon simply because the Commissioner puts up the Bat Signal. Batman is an apparent agent because everyone knows Commissioner Gordon reaps the rewards for Batman’s efforts.” Reply p. 6. We disagree.
…
Clark also relies on the fact that PCI does not operate in jurisdictions where law enforcement agencies do not wish them to operate. PCI’s strategic decisions, however, are at most manifestations by PCI but are not manifestations by law enforcement and, therefore, cannot support a finding of apparent agency. See Pepkowski, 535 N.E.2d at 1167 (“Statements or manifestations made by the agent are not sufficient to create an apparent agency relationship.”). Law enforcement’s discouragement of PCI operating in certain jurisdictions, meanwhile, manifests the opposite of an agency relationship. In short, the record simply contains no manifestations from Detective Boggess or any other law enforcement authority that suggests Schmutte or PCI were acting as agents of law enforcement.
Even if an apparent agency relationship existed, however, Clark fails to demonstrate that he was not predisposed to commit the offense. We have explained that the critical question regarding predisposition “‘is whether criminal intent [was] deliberately implanted in the mind of an innocent person[.]’” Ferge v. State, 764 N.E.2d 268, 271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Kats v. State, 559 N.E.2d 348, 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted). That is not the case here.
Mackenzie” informed Clark on several occasions that she was age fourteen, and Clark repeatedly instructed her to delete the message and say that she was age eighteen. Clark attempted to conceal his communications with “Mackenzie” by arranging for their Snapchat messages to disappear immediately after being viewed. Clark also repeatedly asked for pictures of “Mackenzie,” including “a[n] old pic” of her, and, after Clark and “Mackenzie” arranged to meet at the Olive Garden, Clark texted, “Better not be cops waiting on me lol.” Ex. Vol. IV pp. 60, 110. Clark’s conduct suggests that he knew his communications with “Mackenzie” were illegal, yet he continued to engage with and solicit her.
We find that the evidence does not indicate that: 1) Schmutte or PCI were apparent agents of law enforcement; and 2) Clark was not predisposed to commit child solicitation. Accordingly, the record contains no evidence to support a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Clark’s request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.