Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (2026)
Entrapment
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 9. (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.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.14.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Kenneth Griesemer v. State of Indiana, 26 N.E.3d 606 (Ind. 2015).
Kenneth Griesemer v. State of Indiana, 26 N.E.3d 606 (Ind. 2015). “Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (2008). A defendant does not need to formally plead the entrapment defense; rather, it is raised, often on cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, by affirmatively showing the police were involved in the criminal activity and expressing an intent to…”
Albaugh v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. 1999). “" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (b). We do not anticipate that our decision today will generate a flood of "entrapment" litigation premised on police activity somehow affecting the free will of drunken drivers.”
Espinoza v. State, 859 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-9 governs the defense of entrapment and provides: (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…”
Hardin v. State, 358 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. 1976). “[4] Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (Burns' Supp., 1976).”
Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573 (Ind. 1994). “Indiana Code § 35-41-3-9 (1993) provides: (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…”
Kenneth Griesemer v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 . If a defendant asserts the defense of entrapment and establishes police inducement, then the burden of proof shifts to the State.”
Gilley v. State, 535 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. 1989). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-9. Appellant argues that precedent interpreting the term "predisposed" has improperly considered factors such as the defendant's knowledge of drug sources, prices and slang, possession of contraband, and *132 willingness to conduct further transactions.”
Sanders v. State, 466 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. 1984). “Code § 85-41-8-7 (Burns 1979) ]; (7) was entrapped [ Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (Burns 1979) ]; (8) abandoned his effort to commit the crime and voluntarily prevented its commission [ Ind.”
Marshall v. State, 602 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). “" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (a)(1). However, the defense may be rebutted by the State with evidence showing that the accused was predisposed to commit the offense in order to prove the criminal act was not solely the idea of the police.”
Everroad v. State, 442 N.E.2d 994 (Ind. 1982). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-9 (Burns Repl.1979) reads as follows: “Entrapment.”
Smith v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. 1991). “I.C. § 35-41-3-9 provides: (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…”
Ferge v. State, 764 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Indiana Code section 35-41-3-9 defines the defense of entrapment and provides: *271 (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…”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9(a) — 3 cases
Kats v. State, 559 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
Stephen Boger v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
Joshua D Clark v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9(a)(1) — 2 cases
Albaugh v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. 1999). “" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (b). We do not anticipate that our decision today will generate a flood of "entrapment" litigation premised on police activity somehow affecting the free will of drunken drivers.”
Mathias Gaumer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9(b) — 8 cases
Espinoza v. State, 859 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-9 governs the defense of entrapment and provides: (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…”
Kenneth Griesemer v. State of Indiana, 26 N.E.3d 606 (Ind. 2015). “Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (2008). A defendant does not need to formally plead the entrapment defense; rather, it is raised, often on cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, by affirmatively showing the police were involved in the criminal activity and expressing an intent to…”
Albaugh v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. 1999). “" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9 (b). We do not anticipate that our decision today will generate a flood of "entrapment" litigation premised on police activity somehow affecting the free will of drunken drivers.”
Whorton v. State, 412 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).
Mathias Gaumer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9(bj) — 1 case
Paul D. Mobley v. State of Indiana, 27 N.E.3d 1191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
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.