entrapment defense in Michigan

2018Similarly, the well-reasoned separate opinion noted that if successful, the entrapment defense provides " 'a complete defense to a criminal prosecution' and undercuts 'the state's interest in punishing the defendant' and 'authority or ability to proceed with the trial.' " [ Id . at] 393 [ 308 N.W.2d 128 ] ( MOODY , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Alvin Johnson , 396 Mich. [at] 444 [ 240 N.W.2d 729 ].

2009Moreover, although I agree with the order denying defendant’s application in this case, I would not oppose a grant of leave to appeal to consider the argument that entrapment is a non-jurisdictional affirmative defense that should be considered waived by an unconditional guilty plea and, as a corollary, whether People v White, 411 Mich 366 (1981), was correctly decided. 6 For these reasons, I concur in the order denying defendant’s application for leave to appeal, but I also reaffirm my view that the ongoing recognition of the entrapment defense by the judiciary amounts to an unconstitutional

2019However, the trial court denied the motion explaining, in part: “I said you could raise it as a defense and argue it to the jury.” We concur with Nicholson that the trial court erred in presenting the entrapment defense to the jury because entrapment by estoppel is “a question of law for the trial court to decide, not a question of fact for the jury to resolve.” Woods, 241 Mich App at 554 .

2017However, the court denied the motion explaining, “I said you could raise it as a defense and argue it to the jury.” Defendant Nicholson is correct that the trial court erred in presenting the entrapment defense to the jury because entrapment by estoppel is “a question of law for the trial court to decide, not a question of fact for the jury to resolve.” Woods, 241 Mich App at 554 .

1992This finding is clearly erroneous in light of the undisputed evidence on the record. " 'When persons who are not law-enforcement officials act with official encouragement or assistance, they should be treated as government agents for purposes of the entrapment defense.’ ” People v Jones, 165 Mich App 670, 674 ; 419 NW2d 47 (1988), quoting People v Stanley, 68 Mich App 559, 564 ; 243 NW2d 684 (1976).

1992This finding is clearly erroneous in light of the undisputed evidence on the record. " 'When persons who are not law-enforcement officials act with official encouragement or assistance, they should be treated as government agents for purposes of the entrapment defense.’ ” People v Jones, 165 Mich App 670, 674 ; 419 NW2d 47 (1988), quoting People v Stanley, 68 Mich App 559, 564 ; 243 NW2d 684 (1976).

2025The purpose of the entrapment defense is to “deter abuse of authority by precluding criminal liability for acts that were instigated by the police and committed by those not predisposed to such acts.” People v Akhmedov, 297 Mich App 745, 752 ; 825 NW2d 688 (2012).

2024But “[t]he purpose of the entrapment defense is to deter police misconduct, not the misconduct of uninvolved third parties.” Id. (concluding that defendant was not entrapped when the informant’s misconduct was not attributable to the police because the police “had no control over him when he committed his reprehensible acts” and the only evidence of entrapment was the informant’s misbehavior).

2022Id.

2022Id.

2018Recently, this Court discussed the related issue of the validity of a conditional plea of guilty in the case of People v. Reid , 420 Mich. 326 , 362 N.W.2d 655 (1984).

2018Recently, this Court discussed the related issue of the validity of a conditional plea of guilty in the case of People v. Reid , 420 Mich. 326 , 362 N.W.2d 655 (1984).

2015The second part of the entrapment test requires us to consider whether “the police conduct is so reprehensible” that we will not tolerate it and “bar prosecution on the basis of that conduct alone . . . .” Fabiano, 192 Mich App at 531-532 .

1992Turning to the second prong of the entrapment test, we reiterate that entrapment exists where "the police conduct is so reprehensible that we cannot tolerate the conduct and will bar prosecution on the basis of that conduct alone.” Fabiano, supra at 531-532 .

1978If so, the entrapment defense is not available. 2 People v Stanley, 68 Mich App 559 ; 243 NW2d 684 (1976), see also Hampton v United States, 425 US 484 ; 96 S Ct 1646 ; 48 L Ed 2d 113 (1976) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

1978If so, the entrapment defense is not available. 2 People v Stanley, 68 Mich App 559 ; 243 NW2d 684 (1976), see also Hampton v United States, 425 US 484 ; 96 S Ct 1646 ; 48 L Ed 2d 113 (1976) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

2018Similarly, the well-reasoned separate opinion noted that if successful, the entrapment defense provides " 'a complete defense to a criminal prosecution' and undercuts 'the state's interest in punishing the defendant' and 'authority or ability to proceed with the trial.' " [ Id . at] 393 [ 308 N.W.2d 128 ] ( MOODY , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Alvin Johnson , 396 Mich. [at] 444 [ 240 N.W.2d 729 ].

1988In People v Douglas, 122 Mich App 526 ; 332 NW2d 521 (1983),’ we held that entrapment is a jurisdictional defense not waived by a guilty plea: Defendant correctly asserted that his claim of entrapment was not waived by his guilty plea, citing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of People v Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich 424 ; 240 NW2d 729 (1976), in People v White, 411 Mich 366, 387 ; 308 NW2d 128 (1981) .... [Douglas, supra, p 528 .] Since that time in numerous unpublished opinions this Court has reiterated the holding that a defendant does not waive the right to assert an entrapment defense despite

2015Although trial was forthcoming, both the prosecutor and defense counsel advised the court that, at the time of the entrapment hearing, neither had information that the trial was 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -5- scheduled to immediately follow the entrapment hearing.

2015Although trial was forthcoming, both the prosecutor and defense counsel advised the court that, at the time of the entrapment hearing, neither had information that the trial was 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -5- scheduled to immediately follow the entrapment hearing.

2015In other words, the entrapment defense exists to prevent the police from engaging in “the manufacturing of crime.” People v Williams, 196 Mich App 656, 665 ; 493 NW2d 507 (1992). -5- Accordingly, under these facts, to show entrapment, defendants must demonstrate that “the police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce a law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar circumstances.” People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498 ; 647 NW2d 480 (2002) (emphasis added).

2015In other words, the entrapment defense exists to prevent the police from engaging in “the manufacturing of crime.” People v Williams, 196 Mich App 656, 665 ; 493 NW2d 507 (1992). -5- Accordingly, under these facts, to show entrapment, defendants must demonstrate that “the police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce a law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar circumstances.” People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498 ; 647 NW2d 480 (2002) (emphasis added).

1987People v Soltis, 104 Mich App 53, 55 ; 304 NW2d 811 (1981), lv den 411 Mich 1037 (1981).

1987People v Soltis, 104 Mich App 53, 55 ; 304 NW2d 811 (1981), lv den 411 Mich 1037 (1981).

2024Hartwick, 498 Mich at 214-215 .

2021Generally, whether entrapment occurred is determined by considering the facts of each case and is a question of law for this Court to review de novo.” People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 456 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010).

2021Generally, whether entrapment occurred is determined by considering the facts of each case and is a question of law for this Court to review de novo.” People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 456 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010).

2021Reprehensible conduct entrapment occurs when the police “commit certain criminal, dangerous, or immoral acts.” People v Connolly, 232 Mich App 425, 429 ; 591 NW2d 340 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[U]ndercover drug sales conducted by the police do not constitute entrapment per se.” Id. at 429 .

2021Reprehensible conduct entrapment occurs when the police “commit certain criminal, dangerous, or immoral acts.” People v Connolly, 232 Mich App 425, 429 ; 591 NW2d 340 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[U]ndercover drug sales conducted by the police do not constitute entrapment per se.” Id. at 429 .

2017See *336 People v. Johnson , 466 Mich. 491 , 499-500, 647 N.W.2d 480 (2002) (stating the elements of the offense in the context of analyzing an entrapment defense); People v. Williams , 268 Mich.App. 416 , 419-420, 707 N.W.2d 624 (2005) (reviewing the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of possession with intent to deliver marijuana).

2017See *336 People v. Johnson , 466 Mich. 491 , 499-500, 647 N.W.2d 480 (2002) (stating the elements of the offense in the context of analyzing an entrapment defense); People v. Williams , 268 Mich.App. 416 , 419-420, 707 N.W.2d 624 (2005) (reviewing the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of possession with intent to deliver marijuana).