The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an
offense is not criminal if the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was
induced to do so by a law enforcement official or other person acting under his direction, seeking
to obtain evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and the methods used to obtain that evidence
were such as to create a substantial risk that the acts would be committed by a person who, but
for such inducement, would not have conceived of or engaged in conduct of the sort induced.
Merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense is not entrapment even though
representations or inducements calculated to overcome the offender's fear of detection are used.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 411, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-809.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
People v. Adler, 629 P.2d 569 (Colo. 1981).
People v. Adler, 629 P.2d 569 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 6× “Section 18-1-709, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol.”
Bailey v. People, 630 P.2d 1062 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 11× “Entrapment is defined in section 18-1-709, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Sprouse, 983 P.2d 771 (Colo. 1999).
· cites it 2× “3 In Colorado, use of the entrapment defense is governed by section 18-1-709, 6 C.R.S. (1998), to wit: The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a law…”
Vega v. People, 893 P.2d 107 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 5× “” § 18-1-709, 8B C.R.S. (1986) (emphasis added).”
People v. Jackson, 627 P.2d 741 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 6× “Section 18-1-709, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol.”
Evans v. People, 706 P.2d 795 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The defense of entrapment is defined in section 18-1-709, 8 C.R.S. (1978), which states: The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement…”
England v. State, 887 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Of those statutes, two appear to be wholly subjective on their faces. See Del. Code Ann., tit. 11, § 432 (1987); Or.”
People v. Hendrickson, 45 P.3d 786 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Law of Entrapment In Colorado, use of the entrapment defense is governed by § 18-1-709, C.R.8.2001, which provides: The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do…”
State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “05 (McKinney 1975); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-05-11 (1976); 18 Pa.”
People v. Sanchez, 580 P.2d 1270 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 7× “This can be determined by an interpretation of our entrapment statute, § 18-1-709, C.R.S.1973, which has not been previously addressed by our appellate courts.”
People v. Brown, 218 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “3d at 792 (construing § 18-1-709, C.R.S.2008). The lesser included offense statute and rule, in contrast, make no such presupposition and require no such admission.”
People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The jury was instructed on entrapment pursuant to section 18-1-709, 8 C.R.S. (1978), and was further instructed that, once evidence of entrapment had been presented, the guilt of the defendant must be established beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue as well as all other…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.