crimes because he thought that he was communicating with and traveling to meet an adult who was "role-playing,” and not a minor. A material element of the crimes for which Mr. Seo was charged is that the person the defendant is communicating with or traveling to meet is "believed by the [defendant] to be a child.” § 847.0135(3)(a), (4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); see also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 11.17(a), 11.17(c). Thus, contrary to the argument in the concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion, because Mr. Seo testified under oath that he did not believe that the person being portrayed by the undercover officers was actually a child, the trial court properly denied Mr. Seo’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment. See Wilson v. State, 577 So.2d 1300, 1302 (Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>). 2 . State v. Davis, 141 So.3d 1230 (Fla. 1st
holding that a request for an instruction on entrapment should be refused even if there is evidence to support the defense if the defendant has denied under oath the acts constituting the crime that is charged holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment holding that a defendant may plead guilty even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime holding that when an indictment charges several acts in the conjunctive  the verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction