Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070 (2026)

Entrapment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that:
(a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and
(b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had not otherwise intended to commit.
(2) The defense of entrapment is not established by a showing only that law enforcement officials merely afforded the actor an opportunity to commit a crime.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.16.070.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Arbogast, 506 P.3d 1238 (Wash. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Arbogast, 506 P.3d 1238 (Wash. 2022). · cites it 9× “In 1975, state lawmakers codified entrapment in statute, providing that (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured…”
State v. Smith, 677 P.2d 100 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 6× “RCW 9A.16.070 provides: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had…”
State of Washington v. Douglas Virgil Arbogast, 478 P.3d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “RCW 9A.16.070 provides: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had…”
State v. Lively, 921 P.2d 1035 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 3× “[ 1 ] RCW 9A.16.070. The statute codified the common law definition of entrapment.”
State v. McCullum, 656 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “The affirmative defense of self-defense may be analogized to the defense of entrapment, RCW 9A.16.070. With regard to both defenses, defendant in essence admits having committed the act but seeks to avoid the legal consequences of that conduct.”
State v. O'NEILL, 959 P.2d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “RCW 9A.16.070. Entrapment is usually raised in cases where police induce the commission of a crime while acting in an undercover capacity.”
State v. Nelson, 740 P.2d 835 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.16.070; State v. Smith, 101 Wn.2d 36 , 677 P.”
State v. Valladares, 639 P.2d 813 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “This, Valladares asserts, constitutes entrapment pursuant to RCW 9A.16.070, 7 or is police conduct so outrageous as to *75 violate due process.”
State v. Chapin, 879 P.2d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Chapin presented an entrapment defense at that trial. The State introduced Zander’s testimony about the pager under ER 404(b) to establish intent and knowledge in order to undermine Chapin’s claim that he was not predisposed to sell cocaine.”
State v. O'NEILL, 967 P.2d 985 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “RCW 9A.16.070. Entrapment is usually raised in cases where police induce the commission of a crime while acting in an undercover capacity.”
State v. Trujillo, 883 P.2d 329 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.16.070. Generally, an instruction can be given to the jury if evidence exists to support the theory upon which the instruction is based.”
State v. Rundquist, 905 P.2d 922 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “23 RCW 9A.16.070. 24 Russell, 411 U.S. at 435 .”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070(1) — 10 cases
State v. Arbogast, 506 P.3d 1238 (Wash. 2022). “In 1975, state lawmakers codified entrapment in statute, providing that (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured…”
State v. Smith, 677 P.2d 100 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 9A.16.070 provides: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had…”
United States v. Olga Valencia & William Suarez Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1980).
State v. Galisia, 822 P.2d 303 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Williams, 902 P.2d 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070(1)(a) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Douglas Virgil Arbogast, 478 P.3d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 9A.16.070 provides: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Arbogast, 506 P.3d 1238 (Wash. 2022). “In 1975, state lawmakers codified entrapment in statute, providing that (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured…”
State of Washington v. Douglas Virgil Arbogast, 478 P.3d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 9A.16.070 provides: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had…”
State of Washington v. William Patrick McBride (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070(2) — 14 cases
State v. Arbogast, 506 P.3d 1238 (Wash. 2022). “In 1975, state lawmakers codified entrapment in statute, providing that (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured…”
State v. Trujillo, 883 P.2d 329 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 9A.16.070. Generally, an instruction can be given to the jury if evidence exists to support the theory upon which the instruction is based.”
State of Washington v. Douglas Virgil Arbogast, 478 P.3d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 9A.16.070 provides: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had…”
State v. O'NEILL, 959 P.2d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 9A.16.070. Entrapment is usually raised in cases where police induce the commission of a crime while acting in an undercover capacity.”
State v. O'NEILL, 967 P.2d 985 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 9A.16.070. Entrapment is usually raised in cases where police induce the commission of a crime while acting in an undercover capacity.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070(b)(2) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Jesse Michael Sturm, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Hubbard, 615 P.2d 1325 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
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.