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.
11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Shermangreen1 sentence1992See United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882 (CA2 1952). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McBridegreen2 sentences1991See State v. McBride, supra, 287 Or at 320 n 4. 1991“The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defense does not apply.” 5 At trial, the state asserted that defendant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction, because he had not established the defense “by affirmative evidence.” As State v. McBride, supra, says, a defendant is entitled to the instruction even if it is based on testimony presented during the state’s case-in-chief, if that evidence shows a “possible” entrapment. 287 Or at 321 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dinnan v. Blaubergs
green
2 sentences1992It ‘must be predicated on intolerable government conduct which goes beyond that necessary to sustain an entrapment defense.’ United States v. Jannotti, 673 F2d 578, 607 (3d Cir 1982), cert den 457 US 1106 (1982). 1988It “must be predicated on intolerable government conduct which goes beyond that necessary to sustain an entrapment defense.” United States v. Jannotti, 673 F2d 578, 607, (3d Cir 1982) (en banc), cert den 457 US 1106 (1982). 4 In essence, the due process argument has only been successful where the government essentially manufactured the crime. | 2 | 1988–1992 |
State v. Hedrick
neutral
2 sentences1991In State v. Hedrick, 28 Or App 503, 506 , 559 P2d 1304 , rev den 278 Or 393 (1977), the state presented evidence that the defendant had offered money to a grand jury witness in exchange for the witness’ agreement not to testify. 1991In State v. Hedrick, 28 Or App 503, 506 , 559 P2d 1304 , rev den 278 Or 393 (1977), the state presented evidence that the defendant had offered money to a grand jury witness in exchange for the witness’ agreement not to testify. | 2 | 1982–1991 |
State v. Buttrey
green
2 sentences1986On the second claim of error, regarding the entrapment defense, the state argued simply that it was not available in a strict liability offense, citing State v. Buttrey, 293 Or 575 , 651 P2d 1075 (1982). 1986On the second claim of error, regarding the entrapment defense, the state argued simply that it was not available in a strict liability offense, citing State v. Buttrey, 293 Or 575 , 651 P2d 1075 (1982). | 2 | 1984–1986 |
State v. McDaniel
green
2 sentences2026Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state as our standard of review requires, State v. McDaniel, 251 Or App 345, 346 , 283 P3d 414 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 209 (2013), we affirm. 2026Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state as our standard of review requires, State v. McDaniel, 251 Or App 345, 346 , 283 P3d 414 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 209 (2013), we affirm. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence2012Id. at 429-30 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. McArdle
neutral
1 sentence1992In essence, the due process argument has only been successful where the government essentially manufactured the crime.” 91 Or App at 254 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Batres-Santolino
green
1 sentence1988United States v. Bogart, supra, 783 F2d at 1436-37 (discussing Greene v. United States, 454 F2d 783 (9th Cir 1971); United States v. Twigg, 588 F2d 373 (3d Cir 1978); United States v. Batres-Santolino, 521 F Supp 744 (ND Cal 1981)). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Perez
green
1 sentence1979United States v. Demma, 523 F2d 981 (9th Cir 1975); People v. Perez, 62 Cal 2d 769, 44 Cal Rptr 326, 401 P2d 934 (1965). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. Russell
green
2 sentences1976United States v. Russell, 411 US 423 , 93 S Ct 1637 , 36 L Ed 2d 366 (1973). 1976United States v. Russell, 411 US 423 , 93 S Ct 1637 , 36 L Ed 2d 366 (1973). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Sorrells v. United States
green
1 sentence1967The majority thought there was an implied exception in the statute in such cases; the minority, that “the true foundation of the doctrine [lies] in the public policy which protects the purity of government and its processes”: 287 US at 455 ; and that entrapment was a defense to be dealt with by the court, not the jury. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.