Id. Additionally, excessive pressure or goading by an undercover officer might constitute entrapment. State v. Sprague, 680 P.2d 404, 406 (Utah 1984). Because entrapment is such a highly fact-intensive defense, we defer to the fact-finder’s determination, unless we hold it to be erroneous, as a matter of law. See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936-38 (Utah 1994); accord Beddoes, 890 P.2d at 3. The facts in the record support the trial court’s determination that, by merely providing the opportunity for a drug purchase, Wakefield did not engage in any activity that “would be effective to persuade an average person ... to commit the offense.” Taylor, 599 P.2d at 503. Wakefield did not rely on any type of close, personal relationship to induce J.D.W. to buy the marijuana. See id. at 503-04 (<HOLDING>). Wakefield did not offer J.D.W. inordinate
holding defendant could not claim privilege concerning conversational statements to clergy member who was his friend and frequent companion concerning defendants intent to kill his wife and her lover holding that noncompete lacking geographic restriction was enforceable because the former employer sought only to prevent the employee from soliciting customers she dealt with while at the former employer holding that the fact that the former wife lost on an issue which is not spurious does not mean that she could not be a candidate to receive attorneys fees from the former husband holding that defendants former lover and close mend played on his pity while she apparently withdrew from heroin addiction holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery