Panel debates entrapment-by-estoppel claim after officer told defendant to 'follow me'

Commonwealth v. Edward Cefalo: On appeal, defense counsel asked the Massachusetts Appeals Court to consider an entrapment-by-estoppel defense after an encounter in which Officer Thong allegedly told defendant Edward Cefalo to “follow me” to a residence. The defense argued a jury could find Cefalo reasonably relied on the officer’s direction and therefore lacked the culpable intent to violate a restraining order; the Commonwealth said the remark was too vague, the record lacked proof that Thong knew about the restraining order, and the defense did not carry the evidentiary burden to obtain the instruction.

Why it matters: The court grappled with how to apply entrapment-by-estoppel principles in state law, contrasting Commonwealth v. Twitchell and federal tests (First Circuit and Ninth Circuit patterns). The ruling could affect how courts treat implied assurances by police officers and whether those assurances can excuse offenses that would otherwise be criminal.

Arguments from the defense: Attorney Alex Connolly told the court that Twitchell and federal authorities show the defense should be a jury question where there is evidence a public official’s assurance led to reasonable reliance. Connolly pointed to testimony that Officer Southern knew of the restraining order, that Officer Thong told the defendant “follow me,” and that the defendant followed Thong and parked behind him as instructed. Connolly argued those facts could allow a jury to infer the defendant reasonably believed the officer’s instruction made his presence lawful.

Arguments from the Commonwealth: Assistant District Attorney Kristen Jang said the defense’s best proffered evidence was simply the single phrase “follow me,” and that the remark was not an explicit assurance that violating a restraining order would be permitted. She added the defendant did not inform the officer that a restraining order existed and stressed that Twitchell involved broader, written public guidance that could plausibly be read to excuse conduct — a much stronger factual predicate than the implied statement here.

Court questioning and legal frames: The panel pressed both sides on which test should apply. Justices asked whether the defense must show the government actor had specific knowledge of the restraining order (a Ninth Circuit-like element) or whether a fact-finder could instead consider the totality of the circumstances (a Twitchell/First Circuit approach). The magistrates closely examined the record for evidence that Thong knew of the restraining order or that the defendant received an explicit assurance that he would not be prosecuted for being at the residence.

Procedure & posture: The arguments were made on appeal from a trial conviction for violating a restraining order. The panel did not announce a decision at argument. The case raises whether entrapment by estoppel—traditionally rare—should apply where a law-enforcement officer gives an implied, oral instruction and the defendant relies on it.

What to watch next: The court’s opinion will resolve which test (if any) Massachusetts applies and whether the record here supports submission of the defense to a jury or requires rejection as a matter of law.