Alaska Stat. » Chapter 11.81
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 11.81.450 (2026)

Entrapment

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.81.450. Entrapment.
Article 5. Prohibition on Prosecution.
In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that, in order to obtain evidence of the commission of an offense, a public law enforcement official or a person working in cooperation with the official induced the defendant to commit the offense by persuasion or inducement as would be effective to persuade an average person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense. Inducement or persuasion which would induce only a person engaged in an habitual course of unlawful conduct for gain or profit does not constitute entrapment.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1980–2004 · leading case: State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 2× “Penal Law § 40.05 (McKinney 1975); N.D. Cent.”
Bachlet v. State, 941 P.2d 200 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “Entrapment is defined in AS 11.81.450: In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that, in order to obtain evidence of the commission of an offense, a public law enforcement official or a person working in cooperation with the official induced the defendant…”
Vaden v. State, 768 P.2d 1102 (Alaska 1989). · cites it 4× “at 787 ; see also AS 11.81.450. The court concluded that since Vaden had failed to show such inducement, his convictions should be affirmed.”
Washington v. State, 755 P.2d 401 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “AS 11.81.450. Washington thus had the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Yates v. State, 681 P.2d 1362 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The commentary to AS 11.81.450 states in full: The Code incorporates existing law by recognizing the “objective” approach to entrapment.”
Bush v. State, 678 P.2d 423 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). “450: In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that, in order to obtain evidence of the commission of an offense, a public law enforcement official or a person working in cooperation with the official induced the defendant to commit the offense by…”
Taylor v. State, 710 P.2d 1019 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “300 — AS 11.81.450. Thus, for example, a defendant charged with criminal nonsupport might rely on the defense of necessity, as provided for under AS 11.”
McReynolds v. State, 739 P.2d 175 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “And I found no unreasonable or unconscionable efforts on the part of the police to induce the commission of a crime in regard to [the sale of heroin charge].”
Blakesley v. State, 715 P.2d 269 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986). “He points out that this was his first felony conviction and that the case involved no profit and was an isolated sale to a friend of only a small quantity of cocaine.”
Jacobs v. State, 953 P.2d 527 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998). “” AS 11.81.450; Pascu v. State, 577 P.2d 1064, 1067 (Alaska 1978); McLaughlin v.”
Clucas v. State, 815 P.2d 384 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “-440 (duress); AS 11.81.450 (entrapment).”
Greiner v. State, 741 P.2d 662 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “Alaska applies an objective standard and the burden is on the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the police “induced the defendant to commit the offense by persuasion or inducement as would be effective to persuade an average person, other than one…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.