Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206

Entrapment

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. It is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge that the person was entrapped. To claim entrapment, the person must admit by the person's testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the offense charged.

B. A person who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1. The idea of committing the offense started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the person.

2. The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.

3. The person was not predisposed to commit the type of offense charged before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.

C. A person does not establish entrapment if the person was predisposed to commit the offense and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the person with an opportunity to commit the offense. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity. The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if a person has proven entrapment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray (2016) ariz · cites it 60× “” As part of its trial evidence, the State presented the audio recording over Gray’s objection that it was unreliable.”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle (2016) ariz · cites it 4× “As long as a jury is properly instructed that it may find guilt only if the state proves each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not offend due process to require the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, despite proof of every element…”
State v. Preston (2000) arizctapp · cites it 24× “He appeals, raising several related challenges to the constitutionality of Arizona’s entrapment statute, A.R.S. § 13-206. ¶ 2 At his trial, Preston raised the defense of entrapment, claiming that the undercover police officer originated the idea of the methamphetamine sales and…”
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson (2015) arizctapp · cites it 8× “” § 13-206(A). The entrapment defense “is based on the public policy notion that legislatures ‘could not have intended criminal punishment for a defendant who has committed all the elements of a proscribed offense but was induced to commit them by the Government.”
State v. Trammell (2018) arizctapp · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 13-206(A); State v. Soule, 168 Ariz.”
State v. Hernandez (2001) arizctapp · cites it 21× “We cite the current version of A.R.S. § 13-206, as this section has not been amended since passed in 1997 and therefore accurately states the law in effect when Hernandez committed his crime.”
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras (2024) arizctapp · cites it 9× “” A.R.S. § 13-206(A). This admission “cannot be accomplished merely by the defendant passively declining to challenge the state’s evidence.”
State v. Casey (2003) ariz “Casey was not required to disprove any element of the offense and the potential conflict found in murder cases does not exist here.”
State v. Farley (2001) arizctapp “Section 13-206(B) (Supp.2000) requires a defendant to prove entrapment by clear and convincing evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray (2015) arizctapp · cites it 5× “” “Entrapment is a question for the jury unless there is no evidence to support the defense____” State v.”
Francis v. Sanders (2009) arizctapp “”) § 13-206(B) (Supp.2008). There is no "coercion” element to the defense.”
State v. Carson (2017) arizctapp · cites it 2× “The affirmative defense of entrapment is distinguishable because, by statute, in order to raise it a person “must admit by the person’s testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the offense charged,” A.R.S. § 13-206(A), and it is impossible to do so while also…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(A) — 9 cases
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray (2016) ariz “” As part of its trial evidence, the State presented the audio recording over Gray’s objection that it was unreliable.”
State v. Trammell (2018) arizctapp “A.R.S. § 13-206(A); State v. Soule, 168 Ariz.”
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson (2015) arizctapp “” § 13-206(A). The entrapment defense “is based on the public policy notion that legislatures ‘could not have intended criminal punishment for a defendant who has committed all the elements of a proscribed offense but was induced to commit them by the Government.”
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras (2024) arizctapp “” A.R.S. § 13-206(A). This admission “cannot be accomplished merely by the defendant passively declining to challenge the state’s evidence.”
State v. Carson (2017) arizctapp “The affirmative defense of entrapment is distinguishable because, by statute, in order to raise it a person “must admit by the person’s testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the offense charged,” A.R.S. § 13-206(A), and it is impossible to do so while also…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(B) — 6 cases
State v. Preston (2000) arizctapp “He appeals, raising several related challenges to the constitutionality of Arizona’s entrapment statute, A.R.S. § 13-206. ¶ 2 At his trial, Preston raised the defense of entrapment, claiming that the undercover police officer originated the idea of the methamphetamine sales and…”
State v. Farley (2001) arizctapp “Section 13-206(B) (Supp.2000) requires a defendant to prove entrapment by clear and convincing evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson (2015) arizctapp “” § 13-206(A). The entrapment defense “is based on the public policy notion that legislatures ‘could not have intended criminal punishment for a defendant who has committed all the elements of a proscribed offense but was induced to commit them by the Government.”
Francis v. Sanders (2009) arizctapp “”) § 13-206(B) (Supp.2008). There is no "coercion” element to the defense.”
State v. Hernandez (2001) arizctapp “We cite the current version of A.R.S. § 13-206, as this section has not been amended since passed in 1997 and therefore accurately states the law in effect when Hernandez committed his crime.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(B)(1) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray (2016) ariz “” As part of its trial evidence, the State presented the audio recording over Gray’s objection that it was unreliable.”
State v. Hernandez (2001) arizctapp “We cite the current version of A.R.S. § 13-206, as this section has not been amended since passed in 1997 and therefore accurately states the law in effect when Hernandez committed his crime.”
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras (2024) arizctapp “” A.R.S. § 13-206(A). This admission “cannot be accomplished merely by the defendant passively declining to challenge the state’s evidence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(B)(2) — 1 case
State v. Hernandez (2001) arizctapp “We cite the current version of A.R.S. § 13-206, as this section has not been amended since passed in 1997 and therefore accurately states the law in effect when Hernandez committed his crime.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(B)(3) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson (2015) arizctapp “” § 13-206(A). The entrapment defense “is based on the public policy notion that legislatures ‘could not have intended criminal punishment for a defendant who has committed all the elements of a proscribed offense but was induced to commit them by the Government.”
State v. Hernandez (2001) arizctapp “We cite the current version of A.R.S. § 13-206, as this section has not been amended since passed in 1997 and therefore accurately states the law in effect when Hernandez committed his crime.”
Aros v. Stewart (2002) ca9
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(B)(l) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray (2016) ariz “” As part of its trial evidence, the State presented the audio recording over Gray’s objection that it was unreliable.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(C) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras (2024) arizctapp “” A.R.S. § 13-206(A). This admission “cannot be accomplished merely by the defendant passively declining to challenge the state’s evidence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-206(D) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray (2016) ariz “” As part of its trial evidence, the State presented the audio recording over Gray’s objection that it was unreliable.”
State v. Preston (2000) arizctapp “He appeals, raising several related challenges to the constitutionality of Arizona’s entrapment statute, A.R.S. § 13-206. ¶ 2 At his trial, Preston raised the defense of entrapment, claiming that the undercover police officer originated the idea of the methamphetamine sales and…”
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.