entrapment defense in Indiana

2018Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 (citing Wallace v. State, 498 N.E.2d 961, 964 (Ind. 1986); Fearrin v. State, 551 N.E.2d 472, 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)).

2016Wallace v. State, 498 N.E.2d 961, 964 (Ind. 1986); Fearrin v. State, 551 N.E.2d 472, 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).

2018Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 (citing Wallace v. State, 498 N.E.2d 961, 964 (Ind. 1986); Fearrin v. State, 551 N.E.2d 472, 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)).

2016Wallace v. State, 498 N.E.2d 961, 964 (Ind. 1986); Fearrin v. State, 551 N.E.2d 472, 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).

2015Ferge v. State, 764 N.E.2d 268, 271 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). [12] To rebut the first element of the entrapment defense, inducement, the State must prove police efforts did not produce the defendant’s prohibited conduct because those efforts lacked a “ ‘persuasive or other force.’” Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 (quoting Williams v. State, 274 Ind. 578 , 412 N.E.2d 1211, 1215 (1980)).

2015Ferge v. State, 764 N.E.2d 268, 271 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). [12] To rebut the first element of the entrapment defense, inducement, the State must prove police efforts did not produce the defendant’s prohibited conduct because those efforts lacked a “ ‘persuasive or other force.’” Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 (quoting Williams v. State, 274 Ind. 578 , 412 N.E.2d 1211, 1215 (1980)).

2016Shelton v. State, 679 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (finding, where officers merely placed deer decoy in field, they did not “directly participate in the criminal activity of road hunting,” and the defendants thus failed to raise the entrapment defense).

2016Shelton v. State, 679 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (finding, where officers merely placed deer decoy in [a] field, they did not “directly participate in the criminal activity of road hunting,” and the defendants thus failed to raise the entrapment defense).

1999Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 577 (Ind.1994).

1998Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 577 (Ind.1994).

2019The record reveals that prior to the evidence’s admission, Johnson asked Detective Hassler several questions aimed at raising the defense of entrapment.6 To rebut an entrapment defense, the State must show “either (1) there was no police inducement, or (2) the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.” Griesemer v. State, 26 N.E.3d 606, 609 (Ind. 2015).

2016A defendant is not required to formally plead an entrapment defense; rather, it is raised “by affirmatively showing the police were involved in the criminal activity and expressing an intent to rely on the defense.” Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 .

2019In Townsend v. State, 418 N.E.2d 554, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 (1982), this court held that “the defendant must in some manner affirmatively raise the defense of entrapment before rebuttal by the State is either necessary or desired.” However, in Allen v. State, 518 N.E.2d 800, 802 (Ind. 1988), our supreme court found that “[i]t was not error to admit evidence of appellant’s prior convictions once he indicated an intention to use an entrapment defense[;]” and that it was “immaterial that [appellant] did not submit such evidence.” (Emphasis added.) [28] At the final

1994Hardin, 611 N.E.2d at 131 ("In instances where entrapment is presented as a defense, the state may introduce evidence of the defendant's character to rebut the defense."); Allen v. State (1988), Ind., 518 N.E.2d 800, 802 ("It was not error to admit evidence of appellant's prior convictions onee he indicated an intention to use an entrapment defense."); Medvid, 172 Ind.App. at 30 , 359 N.E.2d at 276 ("To establish [that the government merely afforded the defendant an opportunity to satisfy his erimi-nal intent] it is proper for the state to present evidence of prior crimes from which the jury m

2019In Townsend v. State, 418 N.E.2d 554, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 (1982), this court held that “the defendant must in some manner affirmatively raise the defense of entrapment before rebuttal by the State is either necessary or desired.” However, in Allen v. State, 518 N.E.2d 800, 802 (Ind. 1988), our supreme court found that “[i]t was not error to admit evidence of appellant’s prior convictions once he indicated an intention to use an entrapment defense[;]” and that it was “immaterial that [appellant] did not submit such evidence.” (Emphasis added.) [28] At the final

1994See also Stewart, 271 Ind. at 173 , 390 N.E.2d at 1022 ("It has been held that evidence of similar unlawful conduct bearing on a defendant's predisposition is subject to normal rules of admissibility."); Townsend, 418 N.E.2d at 556 ("Prior to trial, Townsend formally stated that he would not rely on the defense of entrapment.

2019In Stoker v. State, a panel of this court held an entrapment defense “affirmatively presented a claim of contrary intent, thereby triggering the exception to [Rule] 404(b).” 692 N.E.2d 1386, 1391 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

2019Evidence Rule 403 permits the trial court to exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” [24] In Stoker v. State, a panel of this court held that an entrapment defense “affirmatively presented a claim of contrary intent, thereby triggering the exception to [Rule] 404(b).” 692 N.E.2d 1386, 1391 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

2019Similarly, in Dixon v. State, a panel of this court held that the defendant’s entrapment defense rendered testimony of prior drug transactions “relevant to proving [the defendant’s] knowledge and intent to deal in cocaine.” 712 N.E.2d 1086, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

2019Similarly, in Dixon v. State, a panel of this court held that the defendant’s entrapment defense rendered testimony of prior drug transactions “relevant to proving [the defendant’s] knowledge and intent to deal in cocaine.” 712 N.E.2d 1086, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

2013For the State to overcome an entrapment defense, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either “the defendant’s conduct was not a product of the efforts of a law enforcement officer or that the accused was predisposed to engage in the conduct.” McGowan v. State, 674 N.E.2d 174, 175 (Ind.1996).

1999I A In Indiana, the entrapment defense is defined by our legislature as follows: (a) It is a defense that: (1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and (2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense. (b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment. 4 Over the years, this Court rendered inconsistent opinions as to whether the State must disprove both elements (a)(1) and (a)(2) beyond a

1994See also Stewart, 271 Ind. at 173 , 390 N.E.2d at 1022 ("It has been held that evidence of similar unlawful conduct bearing on a defendant's predisposition is subject to normal rules of admissibility."); Townsend, 418 N.E.2d at 556 ("Prior to trial, Townsend formally stated that he would not rely on the defense of entrapment.

1994See also Stewart, 271 Ind. at 173 , 390 N.E.2d at 1022 ("It has been held that evidence of similar unlawful conduct bearing on a defendant's predisposition is subject to normal rules of admissibility."); Townsend, 418 N.E.2d at 556 ("Prior to trial, Townsend formally stated that he would not rely on the defense of entrapment.

1999Although we were following the pre-McGowan rule that the State must disprove both elements of the entrapment defense, we found persuasive the fact that “[t]he police testified that they had no complaints that defendant had been selling alcoholic beverages to minors ... [and the defendant had no prior criminal record,” id. at 343 , in reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding with instructions to enter a judgment of not guilty.

1999Although we were following the pre- McGowan rule that the State must disprove both elements of the entrapment defense, we found persuasive the fact that "[t]he police testified that they had no complaints that defendant had been selling alcoholic beverages to minors ... [and the d]efendant had no prior criminal record," id. at 343, in reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding with instructions to enter a judgment of not guilty.

1982While the entrapment defense is not of constitutional dimension, 5 United States v. Russell, (1973) 411 U.S. 423, 424, 432 , 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1639, 1643 , 36 L.Ed.2d 366 , the comments of the United States Supreme Court are illustrative of the issue presented herein.

1982While the entrapment defense is not of constitutional dimension, 5 United States v. Russell, (1973) 411 U.S. 423, 424, 432 , 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1639, 1643 , 36 L.Ed.2d 366 , the comments of the United States Supreme Court are illustrative of the issue presented herein.

1978Where as here, the entrapment defense is raised, the burden is on the State to show that the accused “was not innocently lured and enticed to commit the illegal act.” Gray v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 629, 634 , 231 N.E.2d 793, 796 .

1978Where as here, the entrapment defense is raised, the burden is on the State to show that the accused “was not innocently lured and enticed to commit the illegal act.” Gray v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 629, 634 , 231 N.E.2d 793, 796 .

2016Once a defendant has indicated that he plans to rely on an entrapment defense and has established police involvement, “the burden shifts to the State to rebut the inducement element, or demonstrate the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime.” Nichols, 31 N.E.3d at 1041 (citations omitted). [14] “Officers are involved in the criminal activity only if they ‘directly participate in it.’” Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 .

2016Once a defendant has indicated that he plans to rely on an entrapment defense and has established police involvement, “the burden shifts to the State to rebut the inducement element, or demonstrate the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime.” Nichols, 31 N.E.3d at 1041 (citations omitted). [14] “Officers are involved in the criminal activity only if they ‘directly participate in it.’” Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 .

2015Ferge v. State, 764 N.E.2d 268, 271 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). [12] To rebut the first element of the entrapment defense, inducement, the State must prove police efforts did not produce the defendant’s prohibited conduct because those efforts lacked a “ ‘persuasive or other force.’” Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609 (quoting Williams v. State, 274 Ind. 578 , 412 N.E.2d 1211, 1215 (1980)).

2012Moreover, he 10 We do note, however, federal courts have generally held “that subsequent similar acts may, under proper circumstances, be admissible to prove the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime charged.” United States v. Moschiano, 695 F.2d 236, 244 (7th Cir. 1982) (holding that evidence that defendant had attempted to make an illegal drug purchase approximately three months after the charged incidents was admissible to refute an entrapment defense); see also United States v. Parkin, 917 F.2d 313, 316 (7th Cir. 1990) (noting that “this court has rejected any rule that subsequent