21-3210.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3210; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Discussed; how statute is applied. John E. Caton, 12 W.L.J. 64 (1972).
"The Entrapment Defense in Drug Cases," Richard H. Seaton, 41 J.B.A.K. 217, 220, 221, 237, 238 (1972).
"Arrest Under the New Kansas Criminal Code," Keith G. Meyer, 20 K.L.R. 685, 721 (1972).
Entrapment defense in narcotic sales cases, William J. Olmstead, 12 W.L.J. 231 (1973).
"Entrapment: Time to Take an Objective Look," Stephen G. Mirakian, 16 W.L.J. 324, 339, 340 (1977).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Subsection (a) mentioned; no entrapment when predisposition for committing crime shown; marijuana found in car. State v. Williamson, 210 Kan. 501, 506, 502 P.2d 777.
2. No error found in the instructions given on defense of entrapment. State v. Osburn, 211 Kan. 248, 253, 505 P.2d 742.
3. Defenses of entrapment and procuring agent not inconsistent; error in failure to instruct on each. State v. Fitzgibbon, 211 Kan. 553, 554, 507 P.2d 313.
4. Accused cannot rely on defense where he has shown predisposition; permissible for law officer to solicit sale of drugs. State v. Brothers, 212 Kan. 187, 192, 193, 510 P.2d 608.
5. Conviction for sale of cocaine affirmed; entrapment not established as matter of law. State v. Bagemehl, 213 Kan. 210, 212, 213, 214, 515 P.2d 1104.
6. Conviction of blackmail; defense of entrapment not available where criminal purpose admitted to have preceded act. State v. Daniels, 215 Kan. 164, 165, 523 P.2d 368.
7. Instruction quoting section verbatim not clearly erroneous. State v. Worth, 217 Kan. 393, 395, 537 P.2d 191.
8. Refusal to instruct on entrapment upheld; evidence; conviction of unlawful possession of firearm affirmed. State v. Farris, 218 Kan. 136, 138, 542 P.2d 725.
9. Applied; police participation merely afforded opportunity for commission of crime; no entrapment. State v. Jordan, 220 Kan. 110, 116, 551 P.2d 773.
10. Prior disposition to commit crimes may be shown when entrapment defense raised; entrapment defense discussed. State v. Amodei, 222 Kan. 140, 143, 144, 563 P.2d 440.
11. Defendant not entrapped; activities fell within exception of section. Bongers v. Madrigal, 1 Kan. App. 2d 198, 201, 563 P.2d 515.
12. Conviction of theft and obstructing official duty affirmed; defense of entrapment not established. State v. Gasser, 223 Kan. 24, 28, 29, 574 P.2d 146.
13. Subsection (b) applied; allegation of solicitation alone insufficient to require instruction on entrapment; sale of cocaine conviction. State v. Hagan, 3 Kan. App. 2d 558, 564, 598 P.2d 550.
14. Defense of entrapment available only when person doing the entrapping is a public officer or the officer's agent. State v. Becknell, 5 Kan. App. 2d 269, 274, 615 P.2d 795.
15. Defense of entrapment must show intent to engage in criminal conduct was instigated by law enforcement officers. State v. Smith, 229 Kan. 533, 534, 535, 625 P.2d 1139.
16. Not guilty plea may be consistent with defense of entrapment when defendant admits substantial involvement. State v. Rogers, 234 Kan. 629, 630, 635, 675 P.2d 71 (1984).
17. Defense of entrapment not available when solicitation to buy LSD is met with ready and willing compliance. State v. Houpt, 210 Kan. 778, 780, 781, 782, 783, 504 P.2d 570 (1972).
18. Cited; compulsion (K.S.A. 21-3209) as defense to felony murder when it is defense to underlying felony examined. State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 642, 740 P.2d 559 (1987).
19. Entrapment as defense to sale of cocaine (K.S.A. 65-4127a) and elements of instruction thereon examined. State v. King, 17 Kan. App. 2d 349, 352, 838 P.2d 349 (1992).
20. Informant's conduct was not entrapment when no link to defendant's acts proved. State v. Van Winkle, 254 Kan. 214, 215, 864 P.2d 729 (1993).
21. Whether attorney who admits cocaine possession violates attorney's oath of office examined. In re Robertson, 256 Kan. 505, 886 P.2d 806 (1994).
22. Trial court did not err in giving pattern jury instruction on elements of entrapment. State v. Carr, 23 Kan. App. 2d 384, 385, 931 P.2d 34 (1997).
23. Entrapment defense rejected under facts of case. State v. Ralston, 43 Kan. App. 2d 353, 225 P.3d 741 (2010).
|
|