N.J. Stat. » Title 2C — THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 2C:2-12 (2026)

Entrapment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

a. A public law enforcement official or a person engaged in cooperation with such an official or one acting as an agent of a public law enforcement official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages and, as a direct result, causes another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:

(1) Making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or

(2) Employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.

b. Except as provided in subsection c. of this section, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment. The issue of entrapment shall be tried by the trier of fact.

c. The defense afforded by this section is unavailable when causing or threatening bodily injury is an element of the offense charged and the prosecution is based on conduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other than the person perpetrating the entrapment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: State v. Rockholt, 476 A.2d 1236 (N.J. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rockholt, 476 A.2d 1236 (N.J. 1984). · cites it 4× “at 168 (indicating that section 2C:2-12 of the Proposed New Jersey Penal Code at that time *579 did not conform to the objective entrapment test that the Court was espousing).”
Grecco v. O'Lone, 661 F. Supp. 408 (D.N.J. 1987). · cites it 4× “of this section, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment.”
State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 2× “Penal Code Ann. tit. 2, § 8.06 (Vernon 1974); Utah Code Ann.”
State v. Talbot, 364 A.2d 9 (N.J. 1976). · cites it 2× “But see Proposed New Jersey Penal Code § 2C:2-12 (1971). This ruling is bottomed on the principle of fundamental fairness.”
State v. Sargent, 617 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). “[4] The New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12, which became effective in 1979, provides in pertinent part: a.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Maurice R. Sanders (14-02-0059, Hunterdon Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 4× “] 4 Defendant does not allege any law enforcement agent falsely represented to him that the heroin sale was not prohibited, the other mode of entrapment proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12(a)(1). A-2762-18T4 14 Unlike, due process entrapment, statutory entrapment is an affirmative…”
State v. Sargent, 617 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). “The New Jersey statute, NJ.S.A. 2C:2-12, which became effective in 1979, provides in pertinent part: a.”
Niel Akshar, Inc., t/a Reuben Liquors Vs. City of Union City (Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “" The Director explained that Akshar argued an affirmative defense of entrapment under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12 before the ALJ based on the claim that the undercover officer misrepresented his age, but that neither party submitted evidence permitting a determination on the entrapment…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Anthony Eugene Stevenson State of New Jersey Vs. Leroy Taylor (12-05-0895, Monmouth Cnty. & Statewide) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12 sets forth the elements a defendant must prove to the jury by a preponderance of the evidence in order to establish the affirmative defense of entrapment.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Siddharth Gaur (10-06-0629, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide) (record Impounded) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). “Contrary to defendant's argument that, because there was "clear evidence that [defendant] was entrapped by the State," the trial judge committed plain error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment, the judge did instruct the jury consistent with…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Marcus J. Covington (17-09-0163, Mercer Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “67, 73 (1987) (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12). Although "[t]he Court has interpreted N.”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:2-12(a)(1) — 1 case
State of New Jersey Vs. Maurice R. Sanders (14-02-0059, Hunterdon Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). “] 4 Defendant does not allege any law enforcement agent falsely represented to him that the heroin sale was not prohibited, the other mode of entrapment proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12(a)(1). A-2762-18T4 14 Unlike, due process entrapment, statutory entrapment is an affirmative…”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:2-12(a)(2) — 1 case
State of New Jersey Vs. Maurice R. Sanders (14-02-0059, Hunterdon Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). “] 4 Defendant does not allege any law enforcement agent falsely represented to him that the heroin sale was not prohibited, the other mode of entrapment proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12(a)(1). A-2762-18T4 14 Unlike, due process entrapment, statutory entrapment is an affirmative…”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:2-12(b) — 2 cases
Grecco v. O'Lone, 661 F. Supp. 408 (D.N.J. 1987). “of this section, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Maurice R. Sanders (14-02-0059, Hunterdon Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). “] 4 Defendant does not allege any law enforcement agent falsely represented to him that the heroin sale was not prohibited, the other mode of entrapment proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:2-12(a)(1). A-2762-18T4 14 Unlike, due process entrapment, statutory entrapment is an affirmative…”
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.