20 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Glossongreen2 sentences2019See State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082, 1085 (Fla. 1985) (involving use of contingent fee for informant testimony); State v. Hohensee, 650 S.W.2d 268 , 268–69, 274 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (reversing conviction based on burglary sponsored and operated by police as violating due process); People v. Isaacson, 378 N.E.2d 78 , 84–85 (N.Y. 1978) (holding conviction based on police misconduct and trickery to secure drug sales violates due process). 2019See State v. Glosson , 462 So.2d 1082 , 1085 (Fla. 1985) (involving use of contingent fee for informant testimony); State v. Hohensee , 650 S.W.2d 268 , 268-69, 274 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (reversing conviction based on burglary sponsored and operated by police as violating due process); People v. Isaacson , 44 N.Y.2d 511 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 , 378 N.E.2d 78 , 84-85 (1978) (holding conviction based on police misconduct and trickery to secure drug sales violates due process). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pelelogreen2 sentences2015For example, in State v. Pelelo, while we disapproved of an additional sentence added to an entrapment instruction, we concluded that, nonetheless, the instructions taken as a whole accurately reflected the law. 247 N.W.2d 221, 225 (Iowa 1976). 2015For example, in State v. Pelelo, while we disapproved of an additional sentence added to an entrapment instruction, we concluded that, nonetheless, the instructions taken as a whole accurately reflected the law. 247 N.W.2d 221, 225 (Iowa 1976). | 3 | 3 |
Robeson v. Diltsgreen2 sentences2015Similarly, in Robeson v. Dilts, we held that although it would have been preferable for an instruction to contain specifications of negligence, there was no reversible error, as an earlier instruction contained the specifications. 170 N.W.2d 408, 415 (Iowa 1969). 2015Similarly, in Robeson v. Dilts, we held that although it would have been preferable for an instruction to contain specifications of negligence, there was no reversible error, as an earlier instruction contained the specifications. 170 N.W.2d 408, 415 (Iowa 1969). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mullengreen2 sentences1992State v. Mullen, 216 N.W.2d 375, 382 (Iowa 1974). 1978The State bases its other supporting argument on the following statement in Mullen, 216 N.W.2d at 381 : “ * * * It [the subjective test] fails to confront the real concern whether the police actions were so reprehensible under the circumstances that a conviction, as a matter of public policy, should not be tolerated.” The State appears to be claiming the quoted excerpt from Mullen is a second test which may be employed in an entrapment instruction. | 1 | 4 |
Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of the State Bar Ass'n v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2013We also note that “a criminal law defense is not a defense in a disciplinary proceeding since the purpose of a disciplinary hearing is not primarily intended to punish the lawyer but rather to protect the public.” Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Williams, 473 N.W.2d 203, 206-07 (Iowa 1991) (finding an entrapment defense did not protect an attorney from disciplinary charges based on his criminal conduct). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Porcelligreen2 sentences1991See In re Porcelli, 77 Ill.2d 473 , 34 Ill.Dec. 158 , 397 N.E.2d 830 (1979). 1991See In re Porcelli, 77 Ill.2d 473 , 34 Ill.Dec. 158 , 397 N.E.2d 830 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yorkgreen1 sentence1986State v. York, 256 N.W.2d 922, 924 (Iowa 1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Poolergreen1 sentence1981See State v. Pooler, 255 N.W.2d 328, 330-31 (Iowa 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1977See Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 , 96 S.Ct. 1646 , 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976). 1977See Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 , 96 S.Ct. 1646 , 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scovillgreen1 sentence1976See State v. Scovill, 224 N.W.2d 221 (Iowa 1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sainzgreen2 sentences1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). 1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKinneygreen2 sentences1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). 1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Stronggreen2 sentences1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). 1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. David Buenogreen1 sentence1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Lynn v. Stategreen1 sentence1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mahoneygreen1 sentence1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Chisumgreen1 sentence1974In support of his position defendant cites: United States v. Bueno, 447 F.2d 903, 905-906 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mahoney, 355 F.Supp. 418, 423, 426-427 (E.D.La.1973); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (C.D.Cal. *917 1970); State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436 , 501 P.2d 378, 381 (1972); People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961); State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259 , 501 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1972); Lynn v. State, 505 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Coffeegreen1 sentence1974But see State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390, 392 (Iowa 1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hohensee
green
2 sentences2019See State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082, 1085 (Fla. 1985) (involving use of contingent fee for informant testimony); State v. Hohensee, 650 S.W.2d 268 , 268–69, 274 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (reversing conviction based on burglary sponsored and operated by police as violating due process); People v. Isaacson, 378 N.E.2d 78 , 84–85 (N.Y. 1978) (holding conviction based on police misconduct and trickery to secure drug sales violates due process). 2019See State v. Glosson , 462 So.2d 1082 , 1085 (Fla. 1985) (involving use of contingent fee for informant testimony); State v. Hohensee , 650 S.W.2d 268 , 268-69, 274 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (reversing conviction based on burglary sponsored and operated by police as violating due process); People v. Isaacson , 44 N.Y.2d 511 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 , 378 N.E.2d 78 , 84-85 (1978) (holding conviction based on police misconduct and trickery to secure drug sales violates due process). | 3 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Quinn
green
1 sentence1979When Farley’s counsel argued that the taking of a plea of guilty from a defendant who denied guilt was proper under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), and State v. Quinn, 197 N.W.2d 624 (Iowa 1971) (per curiam), the court responded: “I’ll never take an Alford plea as long as I’m on the bench.” Despite this declaration, however, trial court clearly refused the plea in this case solely on the basis that the court feared Farley had an entrapment defense available. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences1979When Farley’s counsel argued that the taking of a plea of guilty from a defendant who denied guilt was proper under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), and State v. Quinn, 197 N.W.2d 624 (Iowa 1971) (per curiam), the court responded: “I’ll never take an Alford plea as long as I’m on the bench.” Despite this declaration, however, trial court clearly refused the plea in this case solely on the basis that the court feared Farley had an entrapment defense available. 1979When Farley’s counsel argued that the taking of a plea of guilty from a defendant who denied guilt was proper under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), and State v. Quinn, 197 N.W.2d 624 (Iowa 1971) (per curiam), the court responded: “I’ll never take an Alford plea as long as I’m on the bench.” Despite this declaration, however, trial court clearly refused the plea in this case solely on the basis that the court feared Farley had an entrapment defense available. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Sorrells v. United States
green
2 sentences1974The entrapment defense was first recognized and sustained by the United States Supreme Court in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932). 1974The entrapment defense was first recognized and sustained by the United States Supreme Court in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Lámar
green
1 sentence1974The issue thus presented is virtually identical to one resolved in State v. Lamar, Iowa, 210 N.W.2d 600 , where Lamar sought unsuccessfully to include in an entrapment instruction a reference to “agents” of law enforcement officers. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Abley
green
1 sentence1974In view of the facts, we shall reduce the term to six months.” — State v. Abley, 109 Iowa 61, 65-66 , 80 N.W. 225 , 226 (1899). 'From Heeron to date, we have never been required by the issues raised in an appeal to identify the footings upon which the entrapment defense in Iowa is posited. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.