K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3210 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3210.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3210; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1972–2010 · leading case: State v. Hunter, 740 P.2d 559 (Kan. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hunter, 740 P.2d 559 (Kan. 1987). “21-3209, like the entrapment statute, K.S.A. 21-3210, contemplates that criminal conduct has been performed and that, since the defendant is now attempting to excuse such conduct, it is inconsistent to deny the charges and claim compulsion.”
State v. Hagan, 598 P.2d 550 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “21-3210(fe) provides that entrapment is not a defense where “[t]he crime was of a type which is likely to occur or recur in the course of such person’s business, and the public officer or his agent in doing the inducing or soliciting did not mislead such person into believing…”
State v. Gasser, 574 P.2d 146 (Kan. 1977). · cites it 2× “The jury must determine whether the defendant was induced or solicited by law enforcement officials for the purpose of obtaining evidence to prosecute that person, and, if so, whether (a) the police merely afforded a criminal predisposed to commit a crime the opportunity or…”
State v. Ralston, 225 P.3d 741 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “was evidence that the informant merely afforded him the opportunity to possess the marijuana.”
State v. King, 838 P.2d 349 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 21-3210 provides: “A person is not guilty of a crime if his criminal conduct was induced or solicited by a public officer or his agent for the purposes of obtaining evidence to prosecute such person, unless: “(a) The public officer or his agent merely afforded an…”
State v. Amodei, 563 P.2d 440 (Kan. 1977). “However, if the accused introduces evidence to establish the *143 defense of entrapment, as codified in K.S.A. 21-3210, he then raises the issue.”
State v. Kaiser, 918 P.2d 629 (Kan. 1996). “21-3209; entrapment, K.S.A. 21-3210; and the use of force in defense of a person, dwelling, and property other than a dwelling.”
State v. Van Winkle, 864 P.2d 729 (Kan. 1993). “A person is not guilty of a crime if his criminal conduct was induced or solicited by a public officer or his agent for the purposes of obtaining evidence to prosecute such person, unless: (a) The public officer or his agent merely afforded an opportunity or facility for…”
In Re Robertson, 886 P.2d 806 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 21-3210. Robertson was found not guilty by a juiy.”
State v. Jones, 21 P.3d 569 (Kan. 2001). “K.S.A. 21-3210(a) provides: “A person is not guilty of a crime if his criminal conduct was induced or solicited by a public officer or his agent for the purposes of obtaining evidence to prosecute such person, unless .”
State v. Reichenberger, 495 P.2d 919 (Kan. 1972). “Entrapment, as defined under the new statute, was not argued to the court below and although alluded to by both counsel on appeal neither contend, as we understand their positions, that the issue herein should be decided in the context of the new statute.”
State v. Nelson, 822 P.2d 53 (Kan. 1991). “2d 773 (1976); K.S.A. 21-3210. Nelson’s predisposition is undisputed.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3210(a) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 21 P.3d 569 (Kan. 2001). “K.S.A. 21-3210(a) provides: “A person is not guilty of a crime if his criminal conduct was induced or solicited by a public officer or his agent for the purposes of obtaining evidence to prosecute such person, unless .”
— K.S.A. § 21-3210(fe) — 1 case
State v. Hagan, 598 P.2d 550 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “21-3210(fe) provides that entrapment is not a defense where “[t]he crime was of a type which is likely to occur or recur in the course of such person’s business, and the public officer or his agent in doing the inducing or soliciting did not mislead such person into believing…”
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.