entrapment defense in Georgia

2006“In Georgia, the entrapment defense consists of three distinct elements: (1) the idea for the commission of the crime must originate with the state agent; (2) the crime must be induced by the agent’s undue persuasion, incitement, or deceit; and (3) the defendant must not be predisposed to commit the crime.” (Citations omitted.) Keaton v. State, 253 Ga. 70, 71-72 ( 316 SE2d 452 ) (1984).

2006“In Georgia, the entrapment defense consists of three distinct elements: (1) the idea for the commission of the crime must originate with the state agent; (2) the crime must be induced by the agent’s undue persuasion, incitement, or deceit; and (3) the defendant must not be predisposed to commit the crime.” (Citations omitted.) Keaton v. State, 253 Ga. 70, 71-72 ( 316 SE2d 452 ) (1984).

1979"The defendant who interposes an entrapment defense may not controvert the allegations of the indictment.” Reed v. State, 130 Ga. App. 659, 661 ( 204 SE2d 335 ) (1974).

1979"The defendant who interposes an entrapment defense may not controvert the allegations of the indictment.” Reed v. State, 130 Ga. App. 659, 661 ( 204 SE2d 335 ) (1974).

2010See also Bennett v. State, 158 Ga. App. 421, 421-422 (1), 424 (3) ( 280 SE2d 429 ) (1981) (testimony concerning statements made by informant to investigator was admissible to explain the investigator’s conduct in case where defendant raised an entrapment defense); George v. State, 242 Ga. App. 580, 582-583 (3) ( 530 SE2d 479 ) (2000) (statement was admissible to explain the officer’s conduct in case where defendant asserted that the officer had fabricated the criminal charge against him). 8 With respect to his argument that trial counsel did not properly present evidence to support the entrapm

2010See also Bennett v. State, 158 Ga. App. 421, 421-422 (1), 424 (3) ( 280 SE2d 429 ) (1981) (testimony concerning statements made by informant to investigator was admissible to explain the investigator’s conduct in case where defendant raised an entrapment defense); George v. State, 242 Ga. App. 580, 582-583 (3) ( 530 SE2d 479 ) (2000) (statement was admissible to explain the officer’s conduct in case where defendant asserted that the officer had fabricated the criminal charge against him). 8 With respect to his argument that trial counsel did not properly present evidence to support the entrapm

1990However, it has been expressly recognized by this court that “the entrapment defense focuses on the intent and predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime as well as upon the conduct of the government’s agents. [Cit.] ‘If the police engage in illegal activity in concert with a defendant beyond the scope of their duties the remedy lies, not in freeing the equally culpable defendant, but in prosecuting the police under the applicable provisions of state or federal law.’ [Cits.]” “ ‘In order to raise the defense of entrapment a defendant must admit the commission of the crime; but that he

1990However, it has been expressly recognized by this court that “the entrapment defense focuses on the intent and predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime as well as upon the conduct of the government’s agents. [Cit.] ‘If the police engage in illegal activity in concert with a defendant beyond the scope of their duties the remedy lies, not in freeing the equally culpable defendant, but in prosecuting the police under the applicable provisions of state or federal law.’ [Cits.]” “ ‘In order to raise the defense of entrapment a defendant must admit the commission of the crime; but that he

1989“Appellant’s testimony does not show he was induced, by undue persuasion, or deceitful means, in an overall design of law enforcement people, to do what he otherwise had no predisposition to do and would not have done. [Cits.] Appellant’s testimony falls short of evincing those circumstances which have been found to raise the entrapment defense. [Cits.]” Jones v. State, 154 Ga. App. 21, 25 (2) ( 267 SE2d 323 ) (1980).

1989“Appellant’s testimony does not show he was induced, by undue persuasion, or deceitful means, in an overall design of law enforcement people, to do what he otherwise had no predisposition to do and would not have done. [Cits.] Appellant’s testimony falls short of evincing those circumstances which have been found to raise the entrapment defense. [Cits.]” Jones v. State, 154 Ga. App. 21, 25 (2) ( 267 SE2d 323 ) (1980).

2016See Hill v. State, 261 Ga. 377, 377 ( 405 SE2d 258 ) (1991) (“[There are] three distinct elements that embody the entrapment defense: (1) the idea for the commission of the crime must originate with the [S]tate agent; (2) the crime must be induced by the agent’s undue persuasion, incitement, or deceit; and (3) the defendant must not be predisposed to commit the crime.

2016See Hill v. State, 261 Ga. 377, 377 ( 405 SE2d 258 ) (1991) (“[There are] three distinct elements that embody the entrapment defense: (1) the idea for the commission of the crime must originate with the [S]tate agent; (2) the crime must be induced by the agent’s undue persuasion, incitement, or deceit; and (3) the defendant must not be predisposed to commit the crime.

2005Relying on Gregoroff v. State, 248 Ga. 667 ( 285 SE2d 537 ) (1982), Fennell argues the trial court should have applied the following exception to the general rule that a defendant must admit the crime in order to rely on an entrapment defense: when the State’s case shows evidence of entrapment and the defendant offers no evidence of entrapment inconsistent with his defense that he did not commit the crime, the defendant is not required to admit the commission of the crime in order to be entitled to a charge on entrapment.

2005Relying on Gregoroff v. State, 248 Ga. 667 ( 285 SE2d 537 ) (1982), Fennell argues the trial court should have applied the following exception to the general rule that a defendant must admit the crime in order to rely on an entrapment defense: when the State’s case shows evidence of entrapment and the defendant offers no evidence of entrapment inconsistent with his defense that he did not commit the crime, the defendant is not required to admit the commission of the crime in order to be entitled to a charge on entrapment.

1980See, e. g., Hughes v. State, 152 Ga. App. 80 ( 262 SE2d 245 ) (1979); Harpe v. State, 134 Ga. App. 493, 495-597 ( 214 SE2d 738 ).

1980See, e. g., Hughes v. State, 152 Ga. App. 80 ( 262 SE2d 245 ) (1979); Harpe v. State, 134 Ga. App. 493, 495-597 ( 214 SE2d 738 ).

1979An entrapment defense is not raised where the evidence reveals a marked disposition on the part of the defendant to use and sell contraband, especially as here where Mafnas admitted to being a drug seller for the past 1 1/2 years and that he had possession of the drugs involved here for some four or five months prior to the date of the offense with all "the necessary incidents of power of use and disposition.” Garrett v. State, 133 Ga. App. 564, 566 (3) ( 211 SE2d 584 ) (1974).

1979An entrapment defense is not raised where the evidence reveals a marked disposition on the part of the defendant to use and sell contraband, especially as here where Mafnas admitted to being a drug seller for the past 1 1/2 years and that he had possession of the drugs involved here for some four or five months prior to the date of the offense with all "the necessary incidents of power of use and disposition.” Garrett v. State, 133 Ga. App. 564, 566 (3) ( 211 SE2d 584 ) (1974).

2016After a defendant presents a prima facie case of entrapment, the burden is on the [S]tate to disprove entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation and punctuation omitted)); see also Graves v. State, 274 Ga. App. 855, 856 (2) ( 619 SE2d 356 ) (2005) (“When a defendant raises the defense of entrapment and testifies to it at trial, the State has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016After a defendant presents a prima facie case of entrapment, the burden is on the [S]tate to disprove entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation and punctuation omitted)); see also Graves v. State, 274 Ga. App. 855, 856 (2) ( 619 SE2d 356 ) (2005) (“When a defendant raises the defense of entrapment and testifies to it at trial, the State has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

2008See id.; see also Leverette v. State, 188 Ga. App. 866, 868 (3) ( 374 SE2d 803 ) (1988). 3.

2008See id.; see also Leverette v. State, 188 Ga. App. 866, 868 (3) ( 374 SE2d 803 ) (1988). 3.

1981“The focus of the entrapment defense is the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime. [Cits.]” Johnson v. State, 147 Ga. App. 92, 93 ( 248 SE2d 168 ) (1978).

1981“The focus of the entrapment defense is the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime. [Cits.]” Johnson v. State, 147 Ga. App. 92, 93 ( 248 SE2d 168 ) (1978).

1990See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

1987See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

1997In Schaffer v. State Bd. of Veterinary Medicine, 143 Ga.App. 68, 72 (2), 237 S.E.2d 510 (1977), this Court held that the entrapment defense, which is generally limited to a defense in a criminal proceeding, is available in an administrative hearing where a professional licensee is facing charges which could result in the loss of such licensee's right to engage in that profession.

1997In Schaffer v. State Bd. of Veterinary Medicine, 143 Ga.App. 68, 72 (2), 237 S.E.2d 510 (1977), this Court held that the entrapment defense, which is generally limited to a defense in a criminal proceeding, is available in an administrative hearing where a professional licensee is facing charges which could result in the loss of such licensee's right to engage in that profession.

1996Johnson, supra at 93 (1). “ ‘Because the concept of entrapment involves the predisposition of the accused, the question, like all fact questions, is generally one for the jury to decide.’ [Cit.]” Tolbert v. State, 138 Ga. App. 724, 726 (1) ( 227 SE2d 416 ) (1976).

1988“There was no evidence that the accused had been regularly engaged in the illegal sale of marijuana or that he had made any sale other than the one sale of less than an ounce, this to the [GBI] undercover agent.” Tolbert v. State, 138 Ga. App. 724, 725 , supra. We think the evidence was sufficient to raise an entrapment defense (which was defendant’s sole defense) for the jury’s consideration although the evidence did not demand a finding that defendant was entrapped.

1980See, e. g., Hughes v. State, 152 Ga. App. 80 ( 262 SE2d 245 ) (1979); Harpe v. State, 134 Ga. App. 493, 495-597 ( 214 SE2d 738 ).

1980See, e. g., Hughes v. State, 152 Ga. App. 80 ( 262 SE2d 245 ) (1979); Harpe v. State, 134 Ga. App. 493, 495-597 ( 214 SE2d 738 ).

2010See also Bennett v. State, 158 Ga. App. 421, 421-422 (1), 424 (3) ( 280 SE2d 429 ) (1981) (testimony concerning statements made by informant to investigator was admissible to explain the investigator’s conduct in case where defendant raised an entrapment defense); George v. State, 242 Ga. App. 580, 582-583 (3) ( 530 SE2d 479 ) (2000) (statement was admissible to explain the officer’s conduct in case where defendant asserted that the officer had fabricated the criminal charge against him). 8 With respect to his argument that trial counsel did not properly present evidence to support the entrapm

2010See also Bennett v. State, 158 Ga. App. 421, 421-422 (1), 424 (3) ( 280 SE2d 429 ) (1981) (testimony concerning statements made by informant to investigator was admissible to explain the investigator’s conduct in case where defendant raised an entrapment defense); George v. State, 242 Ga. App. 580, 582-583 (3) ( 530 SE2d 479 ) (2000) (statement was admissible to explain the officer’s conduct in case where defendant asserted that the officer had fabricated the criminal charge against him). 8 With respect to his argument that trial counsel did not properly present evidence to support the entrapm

2009“When a defendant raises this defense and testifies to it at trial, it is the State’s burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted.) Wilcox v. State, 229 Ga. App. 227, 229 (1) ( 493 SE2d 724 ) (1997).

2009“When a defendant raises this defense and testifies to it at trial, it is the State’s burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted.) Wilcox v. State, 229 Ga. App. 227, 229 (1) ( 493 SE2d 724 ) (1997).

2000In Georgia, the entrapment defense consists of three distinct elements: (1) the idea for the commission of the crime must originate with the state agent; (2) the crime must [be] induced by the agent’s undue persuasion, incitement, or deceit; and (3) the defendant must not be predisposed to commit the crime. [Cits.] (Punctuation omitted.) Gray v. State, 191 Ga. App. 135, 136 ( 381 SE2d 312 ) (1989).

2000In Georgia, the entrapment defense consists of three distinct elements: (1) the idea for the commission of the crime must originate with the state agent; (2) the crime must [be] induced by the agent’s undue persuasion, incitement, or deceit; and (3) the defendant must not be predisposed to commit the crime. [Cits.] (Punctuation omitted.) Gray v. State, 191 Ga. App. 135, 136 ( 381 SE2d 312 ) (1989).

1998If the defendant presents a prima facie case of entrapment, the burden shifts to the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt as one of the elements of the crime.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brooks v. State, 224 Ga. App. 829, 830 (1) ( 482 SE2d 725 ) (1997).

1998If the defendant presents a prima facie case of entrapment, the burden shifts to the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt as one of the elements of the crime.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brooks v. State, 224 Ga. App. 829, 830 (1) ( 482 SE2d 725 ) (1997).

1998The decisions on which witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross examinations, what jurors to accept or strike, what trial motions should be made, and all other strategies and tactical decisions are the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation , with his client.” (Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Austin v. Carter, 248 Ga. 775, 779 (2) (c) ( 285 SE2d 542 ) (1982). (a) As for preparation for trial, trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he conversed frequently with Cheesman prior to trial regarding trial strategy, defenses and discovery