EXISTING LAW ON ENTRAPMENT IS NOT UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. WHERE ENTRAPMENT IS ACCEPTED AS A VALID DEFENSE, DIVERGENCES OF OPINION EXIST ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE OBJECTIVE OR THE SUBJECTIVE TEST, WHETHER THE CLAIM OF ENTRAPMENT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THOSE WHO ADMIT GUILT, HOW THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE RAISED PROCEDURALLY, AND WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. NEW JERSEY'S NEW CODIFICATION UNDERTAKES TO RESOLVE SOME OF THIS UNCERTAINTY, YET MANY ISSUES REMAIN TO BE DECIDED BY CASE LAW AS THE COURTS INTERPRET THE NEW STATUTE. NEW JERSEY HAS ADOPTED AN INTERMEDIATE POSITION BETWEEN THE SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE VIEWS OF THE DEFENSE. THE LEGISLATIVE FOCUS OF THE CODE IS ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CONDUCT AND ON WHETHER SUCH CONDUCT CAUSED THE DEFENDANT TO COMMIT THE CRIME. THE CODE DOES NOT SPEAK TO THE QUESTION OF THE INCONSISTENCY RULE, AND IT IS LIKELY THAT THE COURTS WILL FOLLOW THE LAW ENUNCIATED IN STATE V. BRANAM WHICH ALLOWS INCONSISTENT DEFENSES. ENTRAPMENT IS DESIGNATED AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THE NEW CODE, AND THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING IT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE RESTS ON THE DEFENDANT. THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE ISSUE TO THE JURY IS STILL OPEN, AS IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROSECUTION MAY OFFER PRIOR CONVICTIONS, BAD REPUTATION, AND HEARSAY IN REBUTTAL OF THE DEFENSE, TO ESTABLISH PREDISPOSITION (THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE WAS NOT CAUSED BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY). BECAUSE OF THESE OPEN QUESTIONS, THE PRECODE CASE LAW IN NEW JERSEY IS LIKELY TO REMAIN VIABLE AS NEW CASES REACH THE COURTS FOR DECISION. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.