to pick him up. 39. This evidence was not sufficient to establish that law enforcement officials unfairly caused the commission of the crime. All they did was give Defendant the opportunity to commit the crime. “Where the evidence presented indicates that defendant merely was given an opportunity to commit a crime and that no undue persuasion or enticement was utilized, there is no factual basis for a claim of entrapment.” Rodriguez, 107 N.M. at 616, 762 P.2d at 903. There was no evidence presented in this case of undue persuasion or enticement, nor any evidence that the police had exceeded the standards of proper investigation, and therefore we hold that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on entrapment. See Vallejos, 1997 NMSC 040, ¶ 38, 123 N.M. 739, 945 P.2d 957 (<HOLDING>). REFUSAL TO INSTRUCT ON MEDICAID FRAUD AS A
holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment