entrapment defense in Louisiana

51 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Moodygreen la · 1981 · cited in 24 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1983–2007 2 sentences 2007"An entrapment defense will not lie if the officers or agents merely furnished a defendant who is predisposed to commit the crime the opportunity to do so." State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212, 1216 (La.1981). 2002"An entrapment defense will not lie if the officers or agents merely furnished a defendant who is predisposed to commit the crime the opportunity to do so." State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981); State v. Prudhomme, 532 So.2d 234, 240 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988).	3	24
State v. Prudhommegreen lactapp · 1988 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2007 2 sentences 2007State v. Prudhomme, 532 So.2d 234, 240 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988). 2002"An entrapment defense will not lie if the officers or agents merely furnished a defendant who is predisposed to commit the crime the opportunity to do so." State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981); State v. Prudhomme, 532 So.2d 234, 240 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988).	2	2
United States v. Shermangreen ca2 · 1952 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003See United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882 (C.A.2 1952). 2003See United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882 (1952).	2	2
State v. Mathesongreen me · 1976 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1978–1985 2 sentences 1985See, e.g., State v. Matheson, 363 A.2d 716 (Me.1976). 1978See, e. g., State v. Matheson, 363 A.2d 716 (Me.1976).	2	2
State v. Brandgreen la · 1988 · cited in 10 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1992–2014 2 sentences 2009Thus, the focus in determining an entrapment defense is on the conduct and predisposition of the defendant, as well as the conduct of the government agent." Id. at 117 . [6] Respondent testified that when Mr. Roberts called him and asked him for the marijuana, Mr. Roberts told him he wanted to "get a girl high and have sex." Respondent admitted that he knew it was wrong to give the marijuana to Mr. Roberts, but did so because Mr. Roberts was his best friend. [7] The committee noted that no evidence of marijuana's medicinal benefit was offered, nor was there evidence that respondent's doctors h 2009Thus, the focus in determining an entrapment defense is on the conduct and predisposition of the defendant, as well as the conduct of the government agent.” Id. at 117 . .	1	10
State v. Batistegreen la · 1978 · cited in 7 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1983–2016 2 sentences 2016LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law § 48 (1972); State v. Batiste. 363 So.2d 639 (La.1978), The entrapment defense is designed to deter the police from planting criminal ideas in innocent minds and thereby promoting crimes which would not otherwise have been committed, R. 1988State v. Batiste, supra. An entrapment defense will not lie if the officers or agents merely furnished a defendant who is predisposed to commit the crime the opportunity to do so.	1	7
State v. Bernardgreen lactapp · 1983 · cited in 4 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1985–1989 2 sentences 1989State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981); State v. Bernard, supra. In arguing that he was entrapped, defendant relies heavily upon the testimony of State’s witness, Billy Wayne Hardwell. 1989State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (Ea.1981); State v. Bernard, supra. Entrapment is ultimately a factual question for the jury’s determination.	1	4
State v. Batesgreen la · 1974 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1981–2011 2 sentences 2011In support of its argument, the State cites State v. Bates, 301 So.2d 619, 621 (La.1974), which held that a motion to suppress may not be utilized to raise an entrapment defense in advance of trial. 1981State v. Bates, 301 So.2d 619 (La.1974); State v. Kelly, 263 La. 545 , 268 So.2d 650 (1972); Bennett, Work of the Appellate Courts for the 1974-1975 Term, 36 La.L.Rev. 502, 512 (1976).	1	2
State v. Louisgreen lactapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011See State v. Louis, 05-141, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/26/05), 910 So.2d 464, 467 (where this Court declined to reconsider its prior ruling on the same issue since the defendant pled guilty before any trial testimony was taken and there was nothing additional for it to consider and the defendant failed to present evidence to show that this Court’s prior disposition was patently erroneous or produced unjust results).	1	1
United States v. Irving Braver and Morton Lehrergreen ca2 · 1971 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007The Simpson court further found that the trial judge properly declined to include the instruction on the burden of proof, based on United States v. Braver, 450 F.2d 799, 805 (2nd Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1064 , 92 S.Ct. 1493 , 31 L.Ed.2d 794 (1972), where the Court cautioned, albeit in dicta, that an entrapment instruction should not contain references to the burdens of proof.	1	1
United States v. Byrdgreen ca5 · 1994 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (33)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Francis neutral lactapp · 1999 2 sentences 2000State v. Francis, 98-811 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/99) , 727 So.2d 1235, 1238 , writ denied, 99-0671 (La.6/25/99), 746 So.2d 597 . 2000State v. Francis, 98-811 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/99) , 727 So.2d 1235, 1238 , writ denied, 99-0671 (La.6/25/99), 746 So.2d 597 .	4	1999–2000
State v. Byrd green la · 1990 2 sentences 2012State v. Byrd, 568 So.2d 554 (La.1990); State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La.1984); 584 So.2d 724 , State v. St. 2007State v. Byrd, 568 So.2d 554 (La.1990); State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La. 1984); 584 So.2d 724 , State v. St.	3	2002–2012
State v. Cheatwood green la · 1984 2 sentences 2012State v. Byrd, 568 So.2d 554 (La.1990); State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La.1984); 584 So.2d 724 , State v. St. 2007State v. Byrd, 568 So.2d 554 (La.1990); State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La. 1984); 584 So.2d 724 , State v. St.	3	2002–2012
State v. St. Amant green lactapp · 1991 2 sentences 2012State v. Byrd, 568 So.2d 554 (La.1990); State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La.1984); 584 So.2d 724 , State v. St. 2007State v. Byrd, 568 So.2d 554 (La.1990); State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La. 1984); 584 So.2d 724 , State v. St.	3	2002–2012
State v. Francis neutral la · 1999 2 sentences 2000State v. Francis, 98-811 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/99) , 727 So.2d 1235, 1238 , writ denied, 99-0671 (La.6/25/99), 746 So.2d 597 . 2000State v. Francis, 98-811 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/99) , 727 So.2d 1235, 1238 , writ denied, 99-0671 (La.6/25/99), 746 So.2d 597 .	3	2000–2000
Jacobson v. United States green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2003Addressing an entrapment defense in Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 , 112 S.Ct. 1535 , 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992), the United States Supreme Court commented on undercover narcotics operations: Thus, an agent deployed to stop the traffic in illegal drugs may offer the opportunity to buy or sell drugs and, if the offer is accepted, make an arrest on the spot or later. 2003Addressing an entrapment defense in Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 , 112 S.Ct. 1535 , 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992), the United States Supreme Court commented on undercover narcotics operations: Thus, an agent deployed to stop the traffic in illegal drugs may offer the opportunity to buy or sell drugs and, if the offer is accepted, make an arrest on the spot or later.	2	1996–2003
State v. Kerrigan green lactapp · 1996 2 sentences 1999State v. Kerrigan, 27,846 (La.App.2d Cir.4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1242 ; United States v. Hudson, 982 F.2d 160 (5th Cir.1993). 1998State v. Kerrigan, 27,846 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1242 ; Maumus v. Department of Police, New Orleans, supra .	2	1998–1999
State v. Workman green lactapp · 2015 1 sentence 2024Relator now claims that his newly discovered evidence of what appears to be the FBI’s involvement in Operation Koala would have bolstered his entrapment defense by showing that the photographs sent to him by Koala were supplied by “the government, or a government informant.”1 1 On appeal, this Court rejected relator’s contention of entrapment, Workman, 14-559, 170 So.3d at 291 , finding: Considering the evidence presented at trial, specifically the officers’ testimony, and the defendant-led conversations during which he alone requested a meeting with a twelve-year-old girl to have sex with, it	1	2024–2024
The Florida Bar v. Lancaster green fla · 1984 1 sentence 2009Thus, the focus in determining an entrapment defense is on the conduct and predisposition of the defendant, as well as the conduct of the government agent." Id. at 117 . [6] Respondent testified that when Mr. Roberts called him and asked him for the marijuana, Mr. Roberts told him he wanted to "get a girl high and have sex." Respondent admitted that he knew it was wrong to give the marijuana to Mr. Roberts, but did so because Mr. Roberts was his best friend. [7] The committee noted that no evidence of marijuana's medicinal benefit was offered, nor was there evidence that respondent's doctors h	1	2009–2009
Emslie v. State Bar green cal · 1974 2 sentences 2009Thus, the focus in determining an entrapment defense is on the conduct and predisposition of the defendant, as well as the conduct of the government agent." Id. at 117 . [6] Respondent testified that when Mr. Roberts called him and asked him for the marijuana, Mr. Roberts told him he wanted to "get a girl high and have sex." Respondent admitted that he knew it was wrong to give the marijuana to Mr. Roberts, but did so because Mr. Roberts was his best friend. [7] The committee noted that no evidence of marijuana's medicinal benefit was offered, nor was there evidence that respondent's doctors h 2009Thus, the focus in determining an entrapment defense is on the conduct and predisposition of the defendant, as well as the conduct of the government agent." Id. at 117 . [6] Respondent testified that when Mr. Roberts called him and asked him for the marijuana, Mr. Roberts told him he wanted to "get a girl high and have sex." Respondent admitted that he knew it was wrong to give the marijuana to Mr. Roberts, but did so because Mr. Roberts was his best friend. [7] The committee noted that no evidence of marijuana's medicinal benefit was offered, nor was there evidence that respondent's doctors h	1	2009–2009
People v. Harfmann green colo · 1981 1 sentence 2009Thus, the focus in determining an entrapment defense is on the conduct and predisposition of the defendant, as well as the conduct of the government agent." Id. at 117 . [6] Respondent testified that when Mr. Roberts called him and asked him for the marijuana, Mr. Roberts told him he wanted to "get a girl high and have sex." Respondent admitted that he knew it was wrong to give the marijuana to Mr. Roberts, but did so because Mr. Roberts was his best friend. [7] The committee noted that no evidence of marijuana's medicinal benefit was offered, nor was there evidence that respondent's doctors h	1	2009–2009
State v. Simpson green lactapp · 2002 1 sentence 2007Simpson , 01-1850 at p. 13, 829 So.2d at 659 .	1	2007–2007
Brusca v. State Board of Education green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 2007The Simpson court further found that the trial judge properly declined to include the instruction on the burden of proof, based on United States v. Braver, 450 F.2d 799, 805 (2nd Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1064 , 92 S.Ct. 1493 , 31 L.Ed.2d 794 (1972), where the Court cautioned, albeit in dicta, that an entrapment instruction should not contain references to the burdens of proof.	1	2007–2007
Linda R. S. v. Richard D. green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 2007The Simpson court further found that the trial judge properly declined to include the instruction on the burden of proof, based on United States v. Braver, 450 F.2d 799, 805 (2nd Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1064 , 92 S.Ct. 1493 , 31 L.Ed.2d 794 (1972), where the Court cautioned, albeit in dicta, that an entrapment instruction should not contain references to the burdens of proof.	1	2007–2007
Leff v. Housing Authority of East Orange green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 2007The Simpson court further found that the trial judge properly declined to include the instruction on the burden of proof, based on United States v. Braver, 450 F.2d 799, 805 (2nd Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1064 , 92 S.Ct. 1493 , 31 L.Ed.2d 794 (1972), where the Court cautioned, albeit in dicta, that an entrapment instruction should not contain references to the burdens of proof.	1	2007–2007
State v. Lewis neutral la · 2002 2 sentences 2004Id. 2004Id.	1	2004–2004
State v. Prieur red la · 1973 1 sentence 2004The morning of trial, defendant changed his plea back to not guilty. [2] State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973) [3] The defendant was also arrested in 1988 for illegal distribution of a substance promoted to be heroin. [4] See, State v. Lewis, 815 So.2d at 173 , where this Court found the trial court's ruling granting the State's Motion in Limine to prevent the defendant from invoking the entrapment defense did not improperly deny him his right to present his entrapment defense.	1	2004–2004
State v. Lewis green lactapp · 2002 2 sentences 2004The morning of trial, defendant changed his plea back to not guilty. [2] State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973) [3] The defendant was also arrested in 1988 for illegal distribution of a substance promoted to be heroin. [4] See, State v. Lewis, 815 So.2d at 173 , where this Court found the trial court's ruling granting the State's Motion in Limine to prevent the defendant from invoking the entrapment defense did not improperly deny him his right to present his entrapment defense. 2004This Court found the trial court's ruling, "did not foreclose the possibility of the entrapment defense, but instead, recognized that the defense could avail itself of the entrapment defense once evidence to justify the defense and/or a jury instruction was presented at trial." Id. at 173 .	1	2004–2004
State v. Harry green lactapp · 2002 1 sentence 2002Outlining the entrapment defense, we recently stated in State v. Harry, 2001-2336, p. 5 (La.4 Cir.6/26/02), 823 So.2d 987 , 992: "Entrapment" is an affirmative defense that applies when a law enforcement official originates the idea of the crime and induces another person to engage in conduct constituting the crime, when the other person is not otherwise disposed to do so.	1	2002–2002
Jackson v. Virginia red scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2002Contentions of entrapment are reviewed on appeal pursuant to the sufficiency of evidence standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2002Contentions of entrapment are reviewed on appeal pursuant to the sufficiency of evidence standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).	1	2002–2002
State v. Fefie neutral lactapp · 1997	1	1999–1999
United States v. Thomas Hudson green ca5 · 1993	1	1999–1999
State v. Hardy green lactapp · 1998	1	1999–1999
Maumus v. Dept. of Police, New Orleans green lactapp · 1984	1	1998–1998
State v. Sumlin green lactapp · 1993	1	1998–1998
State v. Troquille neutral lactapp · 1986	1	1992–1992
Rochin v. California green scotus · 1952	1	1989–1989
United States v. Russell green scotus · 1973	1	1989–1989
State v. Wysinger green lactapp · 1985	1	1987–1987
State v. Cook green lactapp · 1984	1	1986–1986
State v. Augustus green lactapp · 1985	1	1986–1986
Thibodaux v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc. green la · 1984	1	1985–1985
State v. Kelly green la · 1972	1	1981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:967 (19) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:966 (14) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:529.1 (9) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:961 (6) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:24 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:118 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 19 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:964 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IL 133 (1964–2023) FL 104 (1963–2019) TX 95 (1937–2026) MI 86 (1972–2026) GA 73 (1974–2016) PA 63 (1973–2026) CA 62 (1944–2026) NY 60 (1963–2026) IN 55 (1970–2019) LA 51 (1978–2024) WA 46 (1939–2026) MS 42 (1986–2024) OH 41 (1911–2025) NM 31 (1974–2024) MA 30 (1978–2023) NC 26 (1978–2021) AZ 26 (1968–2024) AL 22 (1974–2026) IA 20 (1974–2019) NJ 19 (1976–2025) MO 19 (1973–2022) UT 18 (1978–2026) WI 17 (1975–2022) CO 17 (1972–2025) ID 16 (1984–2026) MT 15 (1955–2020) HI 15 (1966–2024) TN 14 (1980–2024) MN 14 (1979–2023) ND 13 (1978–2015) NV 13 (1978–2024) VA 12 (1937–2026) CT 12 (1965–2019) ME 11 (1976–2003) OK 11 (1973–2024) OR 11 (1967–2026) AK 11 (1977–2025) KY 10 (1992–2023) NE 9 (1982–2023) KS 9 (1981–2010) MD 9 (1970–2011) AR 9 (1980–2019) DC 9 (1974–2024) WY 7 (1984–2020) DE 6 (1982–2023) NH 6 (1964–2021) SD 6 (1975–1989) VT 5 (1988–2021) WV 5 (1981–2015) SC 3 (2004–2008)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check