Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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. Shuckgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., id. (“where a person is predisposed to commit an offense, that is, ready and willing to violate the law, the fact that government officials or their agents merely afford opportunities for him to do so does not constitute entrapment.”). 2010The defense of entrapment is codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-505, which provides: “It is a defense to prosecution that law enforcement officials, acting either directly or through an agent, induced or persuaded an otherwise unwilling person to commit an unlawful act when the person was not predisposed to do so.” Tennessee applies the subjective test for determining whether a defendant has been entrapped into committing a crime, which “requires the fact finder to focus on the subjective intent of the defendant to determine whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the c | 3 | 3 |
Sherman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018Then “the issue of predisposition becomes a question of fact for the jury.” Id. (citing Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958)). -4- Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-505 requires an appellant to provide notice of an entrapment defense. 2014See also Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 [, 377 (1958).] This court has recognized that “proof that the State lured a defendant into the 1000' school zone would ‘fairly raise’ an entrapment defense.” State v. Charles Lincoln Faulkner, No. E2006-02094-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Blackmongreen2 sentences2018See State v. Blackmon, 78 S.W.3d 322, 330 (Tenn. Crim. 2018Then “the issue of predisposition becomes a question of fact for the jury.” Id. (citing Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958)). -4- Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-505 requires an appellant to provide notice of an entrapment defense. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Shropshiregreen1 sentence2015State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Keith Newmangreen1 sentence1997Likewise, in United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d 156, 165 (5th Cir.1988), the Fifth Circuit concluded that when an entrapment defense is raised, expert psychiatric testimony is admissible to demonstrate that a mental disease, defect, or subnormal intelligence makes a defendant peculiarly susceptible to inducement if the expert demonstrates a proper factual foundation for the testimony, either through personal interviews with or psychological testing of the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Russell
green
2 sentences1980Therefore, he contends: The purpose of the entrapment defense, then, cannot be to protect persons who are “otherwise innocent.” Rather, it must be to prohibit unlawful governmental activity . . . 411 U.S. at 442 , 93 S.Ct. at 1648 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 379. 1980Therefore, he contends: The purpose of the entrapment defense, then, cannot be to protect persons who are “otherwise innocent.” Rather, it must be to prohibit unlawful governmental activity . . . 411 U.S. at 442 , 93 S.Ct. at 1648 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 379. | 3 | 1980–2001 |
State v. Latham
green
2 sentences2001Latham, 910 S.W.2d at 896 . 5 The due process entrapment defense and its other accompanying labels of “outrageous government conduct” are rooted in the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. at 431-32 , 93 S.Ct. 1637 which in dicta, held: While we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction, the instant case is not of that breed. (citations omitted); see also State v. Stephen Neil 2001Latham, 910 S.W.2d at 896 .5 The due process entrapment defense and its other accompanying labels of “outrageous government conduct” are rooted in the United States Supreme Court decision, United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. at 431-32 , which in dicta, held: While we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction, the instant case is not of that breed. (citations omitted); see also State v. Stephen Neil Kennedy, No. 02C | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2011In denying the bifurcation and as such thwarting the defendant’s entrapment defense, the trial court effectively denied defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense pursuant to [Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 (1973)]. 2011In denying the bifurcation and as such thwarting the defendant’s entrapment defense, the trial court effectively denied defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense pursuant to [Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 (1973)]. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Jones
red
1 sentence2000In State v. Jones, 598 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn.1980), the defendant was convicted of solicitation to commit robbery, notwithstanding his assertion of the entrapment defense. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sorrells v. United States
green
2 sentences1982The bed rock of the federal entrapment cases is Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), a case under the National Prohibition Act. 1982The bed rock of the federal entrapment cases is Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), a case under the National Prohibition Act. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Hyde v. State
green
1 sentence1980Tennessee Decisional Law We start our analysis with Hyde v. State, 131 Tenn. 208 , 174 S.W. 1127 (1914), erroneously but consistently cited for the proposition that this Court has rejected the entrapment defense. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1980Again holding that entrapment was not a recognized defense in Tennessee, the Court, without citation of authority, stated: The most that can be said of the entrapment doctrine in Tennessee is that it is a means to a defense where the method of entrapment serves to eliminate from the State’s case one of the essential elements of the crime sought to be proved. 218 Tenn. at 366 , 403 S.W.2d at 323 . 1980Again holding that entrapment was not a recognized defense in Tennessee, the Court, without citation of authority, stated: The most that can be said of the entrapment doctrine in Tennessee is that it is a means to a defense where the method of entrapment serves to eliminate from the State’s case one of the essential elements of the crime sought to be proved. 218 Tenn. at 366 , 403 S.W.2d at 323 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.